Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Rural Economy

Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the rural economy and to raise some rural issues that are specific to my constituency. The rural economy plays a very big part in my constituency. However, as the past week's developments have focused attention on one specific aspect of the rural economy, I shall keep my remarks brief, so that other hon. Members can speak on that topic.
I shall address wider issues in the rural economy before addressing the prevalent issue. I should like to hear the Government's philosophy on, and perception of their role in, supporting the rural economy. Is such support a priority for Ministers? Is maintaining a vital rural economy a priority, or are they happy for the drift towards purely urban environments to continue depleting the rural base? Specifically, I should like to hear the Government's views on the future of objective 5b funding—which affects part of my constituency—of structural funds, and of efforts to preserve the rural economy.
The oil industry dominates the city of Aberdeen and its outlying commuter areas, affecting especially house prices. How do the Government propose to encourage affordable housing in rural environments, so that families can stay in those areas? There is a crisis in the north-east of my constituency, because the only people who can live there are those in well-paid occupations who commute into the city.
At the heart of the housing problem is the need for the Government to confront capital funding for public sector housing. As Liberal Democrat Members have repeatedly said, it is farcical that money invested in housing that guarantees a return to the Exchequer is treated the same as money that brings no return. The Government must examine their accounting processes so that investment can be made again in council and other public sector housing in rural areas. The sale of council housing, and the general failure to build new housing, is creating a serious problem of keeping people and indigenous industries—which would stay when oil moves on—in rural areas.
Especially in the north of Scotland, there has traditionally been a recognition that, wherever one lives, one should be connected to society. The history of hydro-electric, particularly, demonstrates the belief that people should have equal access to electricity supplies regardless of where they live. Opening markets and a market-driven philosophy in running the economy have increasingly attracted people to urban environments,

which provide all the quality public services. The worry is that rural areas will be left out of transport links and be less well connected to infrastructure.
There has been a proliferation of telecommunications masts in all the juicy spots in my constituency. Rival companies have been gaining access to the mobile telephone market, yet vast tracts of my constituency have no access to that network. Similarly, the BBC is developing new broadcasting technologies that will involve more people in the media, but parts of my constituency do not yet have access to current technology.
The fear is that, with less-regulated utilities, people in rural areas will become increasingly unable to obtain services, to stay in their community and to participate fully in society. I should like to hear the Government's assurances that they will encourage and sustain activity in rural environments, rather than encouraging people to move to urban environments.
Another important issue is the future of rural transport. As hon. Members on both sides know, bus deregulation led to a major downturn in the availability of bus services, and to a reduction in the quality and use of bus services. Significantly, on the same day that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was encouraging people to get out of their cars and start using buses, the local bus service in Finzean in my constituency was completely cut. Will the Government explore more imaginative ways in which to encourage community buses? Perhaps community councils could provide minibus services so that people without cars can continue to live in the rural economy.
In the light of the present headlines, it is difficult to have a debate on the rural economy without turning to the most pressing problem affecting many of my constituents—the crisis in farming. I shall keep my remarks short so that other hon. Members can go into some of the detail.
I start with the underlying philosophical aspects of the problem. Since the war, there has been a tradition of the state being heavily involved in the agricultural economy. All parties have accepted that the state has that role. There has been an unwritten contract or partnership between the farming community and the state under which the state has interfered in and operated in the market. That has led the farming community to be dependent on the actions of the state.
The Government have recognised that the previous Government's handling of the beef crisis led to a delay in finding a solution and to even more burdens being placed on the farming community. Ministers recognise that the state has a responsibility, but they have failed to recognise that the Government should assist the farming community. I should declare an interest at this point. Although I am not active in farming, I own a farm.
The crucial point that my constituents make to me is that the Government have a chance to compensate farmers for the fluctuations in the green pound. So far, the Government have failed to make their intentions clear. They have implied that they will not compensate farmers, but they have not ruled it out. The easiest way in which to boost the farming economy would be for the Government to give farmers access to funds.
The rules of the European Union allow Governments to compensate farmers for fluctuations in currency. If the Government fail to compensate our farmers, they will be


forcing them to operate with one hand tied behind their back in an open market. If the Government believe that the rules should be changed, they should change them. The rules should be changed not as a result of Treasury decisions, but after negotiations in the European Union. That is fundamental.
The beef crisis has not affected only farmers. It has also affected the hauliers who take the cattle to market, the abattoirs, the markets themselves and the whole food processing industry, which is vital to the north-east of Scotland. One farmer said to me, "I may be very green, but I always thought that we grew beef for our own consumption." Farmers see farming not as a business, but as a way of life. The Government have failed to take that on board. If the Government withdraw economic support, there is no escape route for farmers. That is why there are high rates of depression and high suicide rates.
I hope that the Minister will give us some answers on the wider issues of the rural economy. I also hope that he will give us not just a message of sympathy—the Government are quite good at that—but some hope of concrete action and a commitment that they will use the powers available to them to compensate farmers for the crisis in farming, which was of the previous Government's making.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for being called, Madam Speaker. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) for initiating this debate on a Wednesday morning, when there is an opportunity for a number of hon. Members to make a contribution.
The hon. Member talked about Government interference, a point which needs greater investigation. I talked to a farmer in my constituency on Friday about the history of farming. Between the wars, there was such a severe and prolonged agricultural depression that, in parts of East Anglia, it was possible to have a series of fields for three years before being expected to pay rent. The plight of farmers matched the plight of those who worked in heavy industry in the north-east of England at the time. The state "interfered" to assist farmers, to guarantee food production and to guarantee our position in the world after the second world war.
The situation has changed since then. The whole emphasis of the common agricultural policy has been to stimulate production, a process which has gone hand in hand with rural depopulation. I do not mean that the number of people living in rural areas has declined, but that there are fewer people working in agriculture and agriculture-related businesses.
The House of Commons Library assisted me yesterday by providing figures for the number of people employed as hired agricultural workers. The figure for 1945 was just under 900,000; the figure for 1996 was 250,000. Over that period, there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in the number of those working on the land. More recent figures suggest that the figure may have fallen to an even lower level—perhaps to 156,000.
The whole thrust of the CAP has been to neglect employment in agriculture as a means of earning a living. I hope that during the Agenda 2000 negotiations, the Government will follow up one of the points raised in the document, which says:
The Union should make a parallel effort to enhance the economic potential and the environmental value of rural areas and their capacity to provide sustainable jobs.
The policy thus far has not been to provide sustainable jobs, but rather the reverse. Even since 1992, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of people employed in agriculture.
My submission is that the way forward is—to use one of the jargon words that bedevil agricultural economics—decoupling. We should take away support and subsidy for production on an accelerated basis.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Does he agree that farmers in his constituency and in mine are in a serious crisis? Does he agree that they require the Government, who were, we were told, elected to look out for the many and not just for the few, to help them? There are many farmers in serious crisis. Does he agree that the Government should seek to unlock the compensation funds in Brussels as a priority? Farmers are not just business men. They are the guardians of the countryside, and they require our help.

Mr. Hurst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has clearly read a synopsis of my later remarks. I agree entirely that the Government are pursuing a strong policy to support farmers. The figure of £1 billion of support because of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis flips off my tongue, in addition to the £500,000 to support the beef industry.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman mentions £1 billion. We were told by Ministers at agriculture Question Time last week that the figure was £1.5 billion. I hope that he understands that that money was negotiated by the previous Government, and was in addition to the agriculture budget. That was done to help the beef industry in a crisis. It is incumbent on the Minister to go back and negotiate more money from his Chancellor in another crisis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage him to do so.
The Government cannot just parade £1 billion as money that they have obtained. It was obtained in a crisis by the previous Government. We are asking the new Government to do the same now.

Mr. Hurst: I had hoped to avoid going into the origins of the BSE crisis and apportioning blame. The issues should be raised above the political knockabout so that we can examine the root cause of the problems in agriculture. I am sure that others will deal with the party political points in due course.
To sustain the rural economy, people have to work in it. That can be achieved by decoupling the payments from production and supporting the farmer for being the custodian of the countryside. The farmer has two important functions: to produce food and run his business; and to act as the custodian of the countryside. The countryside is for us all to enjoy and appreciate, but it cannot be managed on


the cheap. It is only right and proper that farmers should be paid for sustaining environmental projects, keeping the countryside as we like it and supporting the conservation of wildlife.
The advantage of moving subsidy in that way is that conservation schemes are more labour intensive than non-conservation schemes. A hedge can be taken out overnight with a tractor and a man on overtime. It has then gone for a long time. Putting a hedge in requires continual care and cultivation over many years. The more hedges that go in, the more sustainable jobs there are. The more deciduous forestry plantations there are, run in proper woodland management schemes, the more labour will be required to coppice. The more traditional industries that are brought back to agriculture—such as charcoal burning to meet the ever growing barbecue market—the more jobs are put back into agriculture. The growth in game conservation will also put jobs back into agriculture. Each genuine rural job that is put back in agriculture is a boost to the rural community—the shop, the church, the pub and the village hall. It sustains traditional communities that have existed for generations and creates a real countryside, as opposed to a commuter haven for visits at weekends or during the summer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Was he giving way?

Mr. Hurst: I always seek to do so if I possibly can.

Madam Speaker: I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had finished or was giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: It is early in the morning. I am a constituent of the hon. Gentleman, and we share a problem as constituency neighbours. Our rural communities are threatened by the supposed need for 4.4 million houses to be built in the south-east of England over the next 20 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a lose-lose scenario? It will destroy our rural communities. There will be no sense of community if vast new housing estates are to be plastered all over our rural areas.
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in resisting the logic that says that such houses are needed in those areas? It will be bad for the rural economy, bad for the environment, because people will be dependent on cars, and bad for those who will have to live in those soulless housing estates.

Mr. Hurst: As my constituency neighbour and one of my constituents, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have frequently spoken in the constituency against the building plans for that part of northern and central Essex. However, now is not the time to pursue that issue. We had a debate on it recently, when hon. Members aired their views widely.
I shall seek to reach a conclusion, because this is a short debate. Rural communities cannot be sustained without rural employment. Without agricultural subsidies directed at providing incentives for farmers—or business men who are farming—to employ people, there will be ever fewer people working and living in the countryside. That will

result in the horror of large housing estates for commuters or retired people built on green-field sites with no economic connection with the local area.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for—is it Aberdeen and Kincardine?

Sir Robert Smith: West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

Mrs. Winterton: I apologise. I congratulate him on introducing this debate on the rural areas of our country, which are so important.
As a representative of a rural community, I pay tribute to the farming community, particularly at this time when it is facing such tremendous difficulties in all sectors. The contribution of the farming community is often undervalued. Wherever one drives in the United Kingdom—I say United Kingdom advisedly—one sees the most beautiful scenery and well-husbanded land. We do not give enough credit to the farming community for keeping it like that.
The first principle of farmers is to produce good, wholesome food, which has been done throughout the ages. The second is to recognise the impact of agriculture on the environment. They are the custodians of the countryside; environmental policies can be introduced through them. In addition, they provide the habitat for wildlife.
Farmers in Cheshire are interested in, and committed to, the land that they farm. They do all that they can to plant new woodland and habitats for wildlife wherever possible. That can be done only where the industry is profitable. As we have heard so often recently, the industry is in a state of crisis and its future is under threat.
Milk is important in Cheshire. The strength of sterling has driven down the produce price, but my farmers do not see much reduction in supermarket prices to reflect that. We can safely say that some people's margins have increased dramatically at the expense of our farming community. That should be said loud and clear. Supermarkets have introduced great benefits to the housewife, providing a wide range of fresh, good-quality food, but there is a down side to the control that they have. We must recognise what is happening. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food say last week that he would speak to the chairmen of all the main supermarkets and tell them that he was disgusted by their behaviour.

Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the same phenomenon applies to the beef industry? Last week, we saw the lowest prices ever for beef on the hoof in Chippenham market, but the supermarket price remains miraculously unchanged.

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems with beef is that, while the hind quarter has sold exceptionally well since the beginning of the BSE crisis, there have been difficulties in shifting the cheaper cuts.
The dairy industry works hand in hand with the beef sector. It provides the cull cows and breeds some of the bull calves, although they do not go into the beef industry. Both sectors have been equally hard hit by the recent crisis.
Dairy farmers in my constituency ask me how it is that Britain has been the second largest net contributor to the budget of the common agricultural policy, yet our Government will not apply to Brussels for green pound compensation for the four revaluations this year that have caused them such difficulty. They also say that the present Government have given up one lever that they could have used in respect of interest rate policy by handing over responsibility for fixing interest rates to the Governor of the Bank of England, who is advised by an unelected committee of experts.
We believe that the Government should apply to the European agri-monetary compensation fund to assist our agriculture industry. Beef prices are down throughout the United Kingdom. Beef farmers have been hit by the weight restrictions in the over-30-months scheme and hill farmers in particular are in dire straits. The good stock is bred and raised by the hill farmers before going down to the lowlands to be finished. If the hill farmers do not survive, vast tracts of the country will go to rack and ruin. Hill farmers look after the environment, produce exceptionally good stock and have a very hard life indeed.
It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Members who work in the warm facilities of the House of Commons and elsewhere, but hill farmers get up very early in the morning to work in all weathers and we should recognise the valuable role that they play in our uplands.
I served on the Select Committee on Agriculture for 10 years, including during the beef crisis. The previous Government were advised by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which comprises distinguished scientists in the field. The Government of the day have always followed its advice to the letter. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) tried to apportion blame, but it is indisputable that the BSE crisis cannot be blamed on anyone.
Last week, I was horrified to hear the new ruling on deboning. Scientists can advise, but Ministers and politicians must make policy decisions. It was a political decision.

Mr. David Drew: I am rather perturbed to hear that. When we debated the issue last week, I thought that there was unanimity on a difficult decision. As it is widely understood that we do not know what caused BSE, surely the precautionary principle should be foremost. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Mrs. Winterton: No. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as the Minister was faced with three options and took the most severe one. In doing so, we have all let common sense fly out of the window. Naturally, we all regret the people who have died from the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but those numbers must be balanced against the fact that the chance of contracting the disease is one in 600 million and falling because of the policies that have been introduced over the years to minimise the risk.
The British people showed what they thought of the new decision when they rushed to the supermarkets last week to buy ribs of beef and T-bone steaks. We live in an age when we are expected to take no risks. I probably took more risks getting out of bed this morning and

coming to the House than ever I would by eating T-bone steaks every day for the rest of my life. Last week's decision lacked balance and judgment, and beef farmers will suffer as a result.
I have represented Congleton for 14 years. Although there have been ups and downs, there has never been so much depression and such low morale in all sectors of agriculture.
I should also mention badgers and tuberculosis. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) commissioned the Krebs report on badgers and TB, and we are awaiting its publication. The problem is extremely serious; Members representing the west country may wish to mention it later. The disease is spreading northwards to Shropshire and Staffordshire, where it has a considerable impact on the farming industry.
Let me quote from an article in Farming News on 28 November to
emphasise the damage the badger moratorium is causing".
It was about a Staffordshire farmer who
has lost 20 cows through TB. He was aiming to expand his herd to 120 cows and took on a herdsman in the summer, but after 20 reactors were found, his expansion plans are back on hold.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that the badger is implicated in the transmission of TB to cattle. The present policy is not working because it does not allow proper clearance of infected badgers. I agree with the many people who believe that the system should be changed to allow clearance and that it should be a top priority. Badger numbers are growing dramatically in certain parts of the country and, where badger numbers are high, there is a strong likelihood of spontaneous outbreaks of TB. Shropshire is a graphic example; the badger population there must be managed.
Compensation to farmers is grossly inadequate. It needs to be at least 125 per cent. of replacement value to cover the increased costs involved and the long-term effects on farm businesses.
I am grateful for the time of the House today. I have tried to impress on the Minister the need for positive and urgent Government action to assist British agriculture.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on his good fortune in being able to initiate a debate on the rural economy at such a pressing time.
I shall confine my remarks entirely to agriculture, and I hope that the Minister will communicate to his ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office and other Departments the strength of feeling—underlined by the presence of so many Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—about the present crisis. The word crisis is often overused in politics and in the House. None the less, if anything underlines the fact that there is a genuine crisis not only among farmers but among their leadership, it is the resignation of Sandy Mole yesterday as the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland.
People such as Sandy Mole do not walk away from the jobs that they have been elected to do, and which they have done with diligence and honour, unless there is a


deep-rooted problem. I hope that Scottish Office Ministers will have observed the sad fact that he has given up his post before the end of his term of office, and will recognise that that is a sign of the crisis of morale that has gripped Scottish agriculture, as it has gripped United Kingdom agriculture as a whole.
I hope that any sense that the Government may have had that this is all just farmers crying foul, or Opposition politicians demanding action, has now disappeared. There is much more than that. This is serious stuff. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine was right to use the opportunity to raise the matter today.
While we are talking about individuals, I must point out that the Government have one great worry—the sole unequivocal support that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food received in the House last week came from his immediate predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
There may have been a perception at European level that the previous Minister of Agriculture was doing too little, too late, but the great worry is that in connection with beef on the bone, the present Minister may have done too much, too soon. None of us, especially among the Liberal Democrats, would disagree with the idea of making available to the public scientific advice that is in the pipeline and is being put on Ministers' desks, but it would have been more sensible if the Minister, while reflecting on the advice that he had been given, had passed it on to the public and allowed them to make their decision.
The consequences of that decision over the past week, in terms of both prices and morale, have been catastrophic. I hope that the Government will realise that they have added to an already inflamed situation at the ports, and that they therefore need to take decisive action.
What decisive action should the Government take? I said that I would contribute only briefly to the debate, so I shall confine myself to making two essential points. First, for the rural economy in general and for agriculture in particular, the fact that British taxpayers are subsidising beef production and imports everywhere else in the European Union except in the United Kingdom adds insult to injury. That is a crazy state of affairs; it is like an episode of "Yes, Minister". The Government must do something about it.
Secondly, cognisant of the fact that we must send the right signal not only to United Kingdom farmers but to Brussels, the Government must get off the fence and clarify and confirm the terms and the remit of the independent inquiry that will be set up into the whole sorry saga of BSE.
The state of affairs at the moment is ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and I raised the matter in the House last week. The Prime Minister's press secretary—let us be clear about who I mean; it was Alastair Campbell—was briefing people at No. 10 that the decision had been taken in principle some time ago, and that we now had to move ahead with a remit.
However, in the House both the Minister of State and the Leader of the House responded to questions from me and my hon. Friend by saying that no final decision had been taken, and that the Government were not yet in a

position to clarify matters. Why are the Government at sixes and sevens over the issue? They should listen to the voices in the Chamber, where it has been made clear that the Labour party is in favour of, and my party has been a long-standing advocate of, an inquiry. The dog that will not bark is the Conservative party. The Conservatives are the only people who are not calling for an inquiry into BSE.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wonder why.

Mr. Kennedy: We know only too well.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: In a moment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who has experience of the Scott report—and the scars to prove it—will be the first to underscore the need to confirm not only that an inquiry will take place, but that it will not take the same form as the Scott report. It must be open, independent and accessible, as that process was not.

Mr. Paice: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party is happy to have a public inquiry? However, we are anxious to ensure that the setting up of an inquiry is not used by the Government as a smokescreen to curb other action that may be necessary immediately. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Mr. Kennedy: I certainly agree. There will be no disagreement among the Liberal Democrats with the statement that a public inquiry should not be used as a smokescreen. That is not the point of a public inquiry, which is a flushing-out rather than a covering-up exercise. I note the hon. Gentleman's recommendation and the endorsement that he has given on behalf of his party. I expect that we shall rediscover his comments in due course, as and when such an inquiry takes place—or, more important, when it reports.
The history of the problem, which goes back far beyond the immediate BSE crisis, will demonstrate that actions taken by the previous Government on deregulation and so on are extremely relevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves. I am talking about not only agriculture but the rural economy as a whole.
I hope that the Minister who is to respond will be able to say something positive about the need to access European funds to help the farming community, and about how swiftly the Government will press ahead with an independent inquiry.
There is no doubt about the strength of feeling. The Minister will know that, if he has spoken to his Secretary of State. When 500 people turn out in Kirkwall to confront the Secretary of State for Scotland, as they did last Thursday night, to make their point in a peaceful and considered way, that is an expression of the depths of despair in the agricultural community. I know that that point is not lost on the Secretary of State, and I hope that it will not be lost on the Minister.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Did my hon. Friend note that no fewer than 1,000 south-western farmers


turned up at Milbay docks in Plymouth on Friday night, as well? As well as the points that he has already made, will my hon. Friend emphasise the need to restore hill livestock compensatory allowances, which were cut by the previous regime, to a reasonable level if we are to help some of the hardest hit of our livestock farmers?

Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right about HLCAs. The same is true of the cuts in the over-30-months scheme that the present Government have endorsed. If ever there was an example that makes the case that the Liberal Democrats have argued before, during and since the election—that we should not adhere to the somewhat arbitrary spending limits of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is the decisions that the present Administration have taken on agricultural expenditure.

Mr. James Wallace: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great concerns for many farmers, especially tenant farmers who own no land, is the way in which the cut in the money for the over-30-months scheme has cut the capital value of their businesses? For many farmers, that capital value represents their pension. With a stroke of a bureaucratic pen, many British farmers' pensions have been cut.

Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, my hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] It is good to get something out of constructive opposition—[Interruption.]—but I am told that the honour predates the present regime. My hon. and learned Friend is right. How many farmers, as well as seeing their pension prognosis scuppered, have seen the value of their herds, their stock and, therefore, their bankability, wiped out overnight? In backing my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I urge the gravity of the situation on the Minister.
Farmers are not by instinct or tradition militant people. The last thing they want to do is to stand at British ports, checking out vehicles and lorries from other parts of the British Isles. The fact that they feel moved to do so is a recognition and a reflection of a situation that is desperate and is getting worse. As Guy Fawkes said, desperate diseases require desperate remedies. To date, the desperate remedies from the Government have not been sufficient in terms of the overall profundity of the situation. The Minister has a good opportunity today to send the right signal from the Dispatch Box. I hope very much that he will do so.

Mr. David Drew: I am glad that we are having another debate on rural Britain. I think that this is the third time we have been down this course—it shows the importance of the matter. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) proposed a similar debate and I was able to initiate a debate on the housing problems that affect the countryside.
We take a dim view of being lectured by the Conservatives on these problems, as much of what is wrong with rural Britain is their responsibility. They had 18 years to put some policies in place. In the six months we have held power, we have tried to deal with what

I admit are serious problems in the farming community and we seem to be picking up some of the blame for the Tories' inadequacy.
I want to refer to two issues that relate to agriculture and to the way in which the farming community has been affected. I noted the remarks of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and I share many of his views. We feel that the blame should not be attached to us; if the previous Administration had taken more prompt action on BSE, we would not be where we are today.

Sir Robert Smith: My point was that the responsibility of government to an individual in a state exists as a continuity, regardless of the fact that there may have been a change in the party of Administration. The present Government have recognised that the previous one was at fault, but the liability lies with the Government to redress some of the burdens put on the farming community, albeit by the actions of a different party; it was still the Government in terms of the relationship with farmers.

Mr. Drew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why we will see through the culling process, although it is causing great angst. There is no alternative if we are to get our beef back into world markets. We must go along with those desperate measures and it would seem, on the basis of all the evidence, that they are now working. Some say the crisis will come to a natural end next year, or possibly at the start of the year after, when the stock that could have been affected by BSE has been removed.
We are in a peculiarly difficult position. Although emphasis, understandably, will be placed on the beef market, there are difficulties in the milk and arable sectors. Never in recent years have so many agricultural products been in so much difficulty. That is why I understand what farmers are saying: I understand their anger and why they want action. The Government are listening and will take appropriate action.

Mr. Edward Garnier: What specific measures will the hon. Gentleman press on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide the answers that he is so hopeful of?

Mr. Drew: If the hon. and learned Gentleman lets me finish, I shall propose some measures.
The farmers I feel particularly sorry for are tenant farmers, who are often mortgaged to the hilt and face increases in input prices and now have the difficulty of an insecure market.
To take the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in the spirit in which it was intended, I will make some suggestions. I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who said that as much as the Government can do things, action is very much up to those who buy farm produce; dare I say it, the consumer. I would like to stress that the Government—this is not a party political point—have done everything to prove that the quality and standard of British beef is the best in the world, yet many of the problems that have angered farmers have been caused by their being undercut by cheap foreign imports.
I plead with supermarkets to listen to farmers and to a view that is shared throughout the House; if they make more effort to stress the fact that British beef is safe—we can argue about last week's measures—the situation can improve. Next month, the full traceability scheme is to be introduced, but consumers could be faced with imported beef that is not of the same standard as, and which may be older than, the under-30-months British beef that we presume is being sold here. Supermarkets have an obligation to explain that.
In a free market, we cannot say that supermarkets should take all imports off the shelves, but they should stress that British beef and British products in general are the best. That is why I asked a question on the statement last week. We encouraged the introduction of the food standards agency, which stresses how vital it is that we get our act together and do things right. The consumer will make the right choice, but there are ways in which the consumer can be helped to make that choice.
I do not want to lose the opportunity to talk about some other aspects of the rural economy. Although agriculture is not all of what goes on in the countryside, it is a very important part. It is still the major employer, particularly in the more marginal rural parts of Britain. We are faced with a series of dilemmas which the Government will address.
The document we produced in advance of the election, "A Working Countryside", was a good position paper and the previous Administration's rural White Paper was a statement of how things were. We would argue that the previous Government did not take the issue any further and did not take the action that could have been taken. There is much to be done.

Mrs. Browning: The rural White Paper was not a static document and there was an obligation on the Government to report progress annually. I hope that this Government will continue that.

Mr. Drew: I hope that the Government will consider ways—although not necessarily the same ways as the previous Government—in which to ensure that the rural debate is at the top of the agenda. The Government must genuinely show that action is being taken.
The legacy is painful. As has been said, we have had bus deregulation, a continuing decline in the number of shops and other services and the imposition of signing on in person and the jobseeker's allowance. The last has caused an enormous number of problems in my constituency. They have tried to sign on in person, but there are no buses.
Poverty does not affect only urban Britain. Because the number of rural poor is small, the problem is not statistically recognised, but rural poverty exists and has been made worse by rural decline. I strongly support the establishment of the social exclusion unit, but we must ensure that it has a rural as well as an urban dimension. I believe that we can and will do that.
I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister say that regional development agencies will have a rural dimension. That shows what the Government can do. Some may say that that is at the cost of the Rural Development Commission, but my view is that that quango had served its purpose. I believe in taking decisions at the lowest possible level; that will surely be the role of regional development agencies.
This is a debate that must continually be heard. Serious problems afflict agriculture at the moment, but there are wider rural issues and I look forward to the Government addressing them in the appropriate manner.

Mr. James Paice: I want to follow the example of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and concentrate entirely on agriculture, in particular livestock producers in the hills and uplands, where the crisis is most acute.
A survey by the National Farmers Union in 1995 showed that 42 per cent. of farmers in the less-favoured areas had a net farm income of less than £10,000. By any reckoning that is a low figure and it is the background against which we must view the worsening situation.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) was right: agricultural employment has been falling for a long while. That is happening predominantly in the arable areas, whereas the hills and uplands tend to have family farms and the fall there has been significantly smaller.
It has been implied this morning that the whole of the problem in the hills falls to the BSE crisis. We cannot get away from the fact that it is a significant factor, but we should consider some more up-to-date information. The peak of the crisis came at the end of March 1996, when the market collapse took place; market prices climbed back during 1996 and other livestock prices benefited from the collapse in beef prices.
Today, fat cattle are about 90p per kilo, compared with £1.09 12 months ago, after the recovery. Store cattle have fallen by more and fat sheep by dramatically more, to 94½p from £1.39 per kilo a year ago. That picture is mirrored across all other farm produce. Imports are coming from countries that use inputs such as mammalian meat and bonemeal, which are banned in this country.
We have had four currency revaluations in 1997, of which two were under the previous Government, because of the appreciation of sterling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, the two later revaluations must have been partially affected by the handing over of the control of interest rates to the Bank of England.
It has been estimated that the total cost of the revaluations to the agriculture industry is about £2 billion off farm gate prices. The consequences are there for all to see. The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that in 1997 sheep exports will be between 400,000 and 500,000 head, compared with 1 million head in 1995 and 770,000 in 1996: a dramatic decline and one significant reason for the fall in sheep prices.
In January to September this year, beef imports from the Republic of Ireland were up 72 per cent. on the same period last year. Those from the rest of the European Union, including many countries that do not have all the controls that we have, but where BSE is known to be present, were up 42 per cent. In particular, it seems odd that we can import beef from over-30-months cattle, whereas we quite rightly cannot consume our own.
The price falls show that a significant part of the current crisis falls to events of the past few months. The Government's actions do them little credit. They abandoned the regional panels within days of taking office, thereby severing the contact with the industry


that would have let them know what is going on. The over-30-months scheme cost the industry £29 million, but one should consider that farmers in the less-favoured areas, with an income of about £10,000, would have to dispose of only two cull cows to reduce their income by 10 per cent. because of the difference in price over the past 12 months.
Hill livestock compensatory allowances have been cut. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the Conservative Government cut HLCAs. I acknowledge that they did in some years, but that was against the background of a falling pound, rising exports and increasing prices.
The Government decided to charge farmers £5 to £10 for cattle passports. The Conservative Government said that we would fund the setting up of a computerised system; the current Government have abandoned that. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said the other day that the existing passport scheme costs about £7.2 million; but his proposed figures could raise anything up to £38 million. When I challenged his Minister of State, he refused to rule out the possibility that the Treasury might make a profit from the fees.
The Meat Hygiene Service will cost the farming industry about £44 million. I share the views of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West on the subject of beef on the bone. I believe that the evidence demonstrates that the public believe the ban to be an overreaction.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has criticised my party for urging extra public expenditure on monetary compensation, but he refuses to take on board the fact that some money is available to him. The sheep annual premium scheme will underspend in the current year, so there will be a significant increase in our Fontainebleau rebate in the next financial year; Treasury figures suggest that it could be in excess of £100 million. That money could be reallocated back into the Ministry and used to help with European compensation without an overall increase in public expenditure.
In the past few months, the Labour party has made a great deal of its alleged representation of rural areas. There is a great difference between representing and caring. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already garnered a reputation for being distant, remote and unwilling to meet representatives of the farming and other industries for which he is responsible. By getting rid of the regional panels, he has cut himself off from the one link that he had. He has been worrying about new names and logos for his Ministry, but the current problems may lead to a dramatic diminution of the agriculture industry for which it is responsible. I hope that the Minister will take on board not only the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken this morning but the views of the thousands of farmers across all sectors, but especially in the livestock sector, who face a desperate future. They have gone out on the streets and to the docks. I do not condone any violence, but I recognise the plight that has driven them to those actions.
I hope that the Minister will go back to his colleagues and say, "Act now. We cannot let farmers face the new year in this abysmal situation; the pound continues to harden and prices continue to fall." In this densely

populated country of ours, we cannot afford to let the countryside fall into dereliction, but that is what will happen to our hills and uplands if we do not assist farmers now.

Dr. Liam Fox: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on obtaining the debate and enabling us to discuss some topical and important problems that confront the countryside. As he began in Scotland, I too shall begin with comments about Scotland.
I sometimes wonder whether those who live in the central belt of Scotland understand that rural Scotland not only comprises 90 per cent. of Scotland's land mass but is home to one third of the Scottish population. That seems sometimes to be forgotten in Scottish domestic politics. It is certainly forgotten by Labour Members, because they have not bothered to turn up this morning.
Employment in rural Scotland increased by 6.5 per cent. between 1981 and 1991; the population rose by 3.5 per cent. In office, the Conservatives set up the rural partnership fund, which was worth £3.7 million in 1996–97 and £4.2 million in 1997–98. In response to a specific point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I remind him that under the Conservatives capital allocations to housing were substantially higher for rural Scotland than for urban Scotland. He made one or two valid points.

Sir Robert Smith: The Conservatives also introduced rules under which receipts from sales of council houses had to go towards repayment of debt rather than investment in the quality of the local housing stock.

Dr. Fox: I shall not go into that argument. Repayment of debt is important when some councils in the United Kingdom have debts higher than those of some third-world countries.
Today, we have had the rural Liberal Democrats trotted out. More townie than townie or more country than country are the Liberal Democrats, depending on the audience. In a different debate, we will have the townie Liberal Democrats trotted out. A party that cuddles up so closely to the Government—and with a leader who waits under the Cabinet table for any crumbs of prestige that might be dropped on him—is in danger of being found guilty by association with the Labour Government.
The Government do not regard the countryside as a real place with real people or real jobs. For many members of the Government, the countryside is somewhere where people from Islington go at weekends. We have to ask what the Government have against the countryside. They have increased interest rates. The rural development agencies will be based in urban areas. In the south-west—a matter that is important to my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for South—West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who were unable to speak in the debate, the RDAs will be dominated by Bristol and Plymouth, not rural areas. The local government settlement has a rural to urban bias.
The Government failed to fight for beef at Amsterdam. They have failed to compensate for the rise in the pound. They have introduced cattle passport charges, new Meat Hygiene Service charges and extra abattoir waste costs.


They have cut over-30-months scheme cattle compensation and the hill livestock compensatory allowance. The Government seem to serve no one's interest but their own. They are there to serve the cult of the Prime Minister's ego, not the people in the countryside.
The question is—[Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats should stop for one minute and contain themselves. Why does the rural economy matter? Because it has a £17 billion turnover. It represents 1.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. It employs 608,000 people—more than transport, mining and quarrying, research and development, post and telecommunications, or the energy or water supply industries. It makes an important contribution to our trade. It is important for our investment. However, the key measure of farm investment—the agricultural gross fixed capital formation—will be hit by the current loss of confidence and the Government's raising of interest rates.
Farmers are the natural custodians of the countryside. Under the Conservative Government, more than 5,200 farmers signed up to the countryside stewardship scheme. By designating environmentally sensitive areas, which cover more than 15 per cent. of UK land, we encouraged integration of agricultural practices with sensitive conservation management. Under the farm woodland premium, more than 17,000 hectares of tress have been planted. Those are all important environmental gains.
The problem with farmers is that they are capital rich and cash poor. When a crisis hits, they stop spending, which presents a potentially catastrophic downturn for rural service industries. The low incomes associated with the current situation mean that the young will not enter farming. Where will the next generation of farmers come from? If people leave farming, prices will fall, there will be a loss of capital value and we shall have a spiral downwards. That is the root of the crisis. As several of my hon. Friends have said, we face a genuine crisis in the countryside.
Then again, the countryside and environmental management require farming to make a profit. Stone walls do not build themselves. Hedges do not look after themselves. What those in towns tend to call nature is in fact a constant battle against nature, waged on the nation's behalf by those who look after our countryside.
The point made over and over again by hon. Members from all parties is the plight of the beef industry. I represent a constituency which has a large number of beef and dairy farmers. There is a need to understand exactly where we are at present. We have fulfilled the conditions that were set out at Florence. We have kept our part of the bargain. We have the safest beef in Europe. That has been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House today. The public view what the Minister announced last week as an excessive knee-jerk reaction, but we must accept that the beef ban is now political and economic. It is nothing to do with safety. It is a protectionist measure levied against British farming by a protectionist mentality in the European Union that seeks to protect European farmers from higher-quality British products.
The Government should feel most ashamed of their failure to fight for beef at Amsterdam. We have made it clear that we would not have allowed the Amsterdam

process to come to a conclusion without the lifting of the beef ban, but it was cast aside callously by the Government, who have no regard for what was happening.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No, I do not have time. The pictures of the Prime Minister being embraced by Euro mobs are an adequate price for a few farms going out of business—as far as the Government's news management is concerned.
A strong pound has driven down farm incomes. It means more imports and fewer exports. It means that minimum prices in the United Kingdom are cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) asked, why are the Government doing nothing with agrimonetary aid; every other eligible state in the European Union pays its share? Why not Britain? The Minister who is to reply, who has responsibility for Scottish farmers, should tell us why we in the United Kingdom will not support Scottish farmers but, as EU taxpayers, we are subsidising every other group of farmers in the Union.
In Scotland alone, the costs are £7.6 million for cattle passports, £8.3 million in new Meat Hygiene Service charges and £12 million extra in charges for abattoir waste disposal. HLCA payments are down by £50 and sheep support has been frozen at the 1996 level. What will the Minister tell Scottish farmers when they are confronted with those drops in income and when the service industries face reductions in their income as a consequence? He cannot simply sit back and say, "Well, there were 18 years of Conservative government, so we have no responsibility for the crisis you face." Much of the crisis that farmers face at present lies fairly at the door of the Labour Government.
There is no doubt that the rural economy is in crisis. Farming needs action; not inquiries or soundbites. Farmers have not sought confrontation; it has been forced upon them. Everything the Government have touched has been bad for the countryside. Everything they have said shows a callous disregard for farmers; and everything—from the Prime Minister's pictures in Country Life magazine, posing as the country boy, onwards—shows that their appeal to the rural electorate was, like so much else, a web of deceit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) on securing this debate on the rural economy. We have had an informed and wide-ranging debate that has covered many areas of public policy. The House will be aware that I do not have responsibility for all—indeed, for most—of those areas, but since May I have visited many parts of rural Scotland in connection with my responsibilities for transport, local government housing and European structural funds.
I have 10 minutes in which to speak and I propose to spend five minutes on the general matters the hon. Gentleman raised and five minutes on the beef question. He started by asking about the Government's philosophy and their role in supporting the rural economy. The Government have been elected on a manifesto


commitment to sustain vibrant local communities in rural and remote areas. We recognise that those who live and work in rural areas have special needs. Our manifesto also stated that we recognised that the countryside is a great natural asset and a part of our heritage that calls for careful stewardship.
On 31 October, in Scotland, we published a discussion paper, "Towards a Development Strategy for Rural Scotland", which set out the aims we plan to follow in all our policies for rural Scotland. It stressed that sustainable development is at the heart of those policies. In rural areas, such development requires an integrated approach to three main policy objectives: economic, social and environmental. In economic life, we want more job opportunities and improved education and training to enhance the life opportunities of the rural population. In the social area, we want to improve services and enable local communities to retain population and expand social and cultural facilities. In environmental matters, we want to safeguard our natural heritage in a way that recognises that people continue to have an active place in the rural environment.
In short, we are committed to a living countryside. We reject the assumption of general rural prosperity that underlay the previous Government's 1995 rural White Paper. We recognise that there are specific rural problems: low wages in some sectors of the rural economy; inaccessibility for new businesses; and lack of employment opportunities. These are not new problems, but the Government are committed to enhancing opportunity and promoting employment and investment for sustained economic growth. Our aim is to enhance the life chances of rural citizens, especially those who suffer from social exclusion—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

Mr. Laurence Robertson: When the Minister discusses employment opportunities in the countryside, will he bear in mind the enormous impact a hunting ban would have on countryside employment?

Mr. Chisholm: How I voted on that issue is a matter of record and I do not propose to speak about it now.
Since coming to power in May, the Government have taken decisive action to help rural communities. First, our proposals for devolution will enable far more extensive discussion of rural issues in Scotland; a proportional voting system will ensure that the new Parliament is an inclusive one in which rural Scotland has a strong voice. Secondly, we have announced our intention that national parks will be established in Scotland, ending many years of indecision on that matter. Thirdly, we have established a land reform policy group for Scotland, in fulfilment of our manifesto commitment to
initiate a study into the system of land ownership and management in Scotland".
I shall comment briefly on the three specific areas mentioned by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine: structural funds, housing and transport. He will be pleased to learn that a press release today will announce objective 5b funding for his area of the country and we are determined that structural funds for rural areas should continue under the new objective 2 arrangements.
We are also determined to keep funding for the highlands and islands and hope to invoke the sparsely populated area criterion to establish that. Some hon. Members might be surprised to learn that the highlands of Scotland are almost as sparsely populated as Finland. We shall also make use of the new treaty language on islands. I am especially aware of the problems of island communities, having visited the western isles this summer. I recently wrote to the chairman of Caledonian MacBrayne asking him to reconsider the decision to raise fares on the Ullapool-Stornaway route.
In the past two weeks, we have started three major housing initiatives that will help housing in rural areas: the energy efficiency initiative, which is tied in with welfare to work; the empty homes initiative, about which there will be announcements next week; and on Friday we announced £35 million for new housing partnerships, and I have said explicitly that that should apply to rural as well as to urban areas.
In many recent transport speeches, I have emphasised that solutions appropriate to urban areas might not be appropriate to rural areas. We shall have a new framework for bus services, which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine mentioned. I have also flagged up the importance of community transport and I hope that there will be an announcement about that soon. I have ensured that a member of the Community Transport Association is on the national transport forum which I recently convened.
Beef contributes between one quarter and one third of Scotland's total gross farm output. The continued presence of beef production on our hills and uplands is testament to the Government's commitment to this sector and the extent to which, as a Government, we are prepared to continue to support it. To put that contribution into perspective, I remind the House that the beef industry in Scotland received £127 million in direct subsidies in 1996, not to mention the institutional support that is provided via intervention. Put another way, direct subsidies represent between 200 and 300 per cent. of net farm income on specialist beef farms in our less-favoured areas.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Chisholm: I have only four minutes left, but I shall take an intervention at the end of my remarks about beef.
On average, each beef farmer in the less-favoured areas receives roughly £25,000 in subsidy. Much has been made—understandably—of the present difficulties that confront beef farmers. In considering that, one has to recognise that various forces are at work. First, there is the long-term downward trend in beef consumption. Secondly, bovine spongiform encephalopathy is having a major impact on the sector. Thirdly, as has been mentioned in the debate, sterling is strong at present, which is a clear reflection of the confidence investors have in the current Government—unlike the previous one.
Much has been made about the downside of a strong pound. I acknowledge that it is aiding imports to this country, particularly from Ireland. It is hardly surprising that farmers—especially beef farmers—are queuing up to press for agrimonetary compensation. There was, however, no such queue when the pound was weak and


farmers were overcompensated to the tune of £100 million per year on average between 1992 and 1996. Even taking account of recent revaluations, common agricultural policy prices in the UK are converted at a rate that is 5.6 per cent. higher than it was in January 1990.

Mr. John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Chisholm: In a minute.
Such is the Government's commitment to the beef sector and such is our recognition of its importance to Scotland that the claims of the beef farmers are not being ignored, pending a review of whether they are justified. If any help is possible—I use the word "if' advisedly—it will have to take account of the tight expenditure provisions within which the Government as a whole have to operate. All the calls for European money ignore the fact that much of that will have to come out of general public expenditure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Chisholm: I have only three minutes left, I so I shall take only one intervention, from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister recognise the difference between the situation facing beef farmers today and that of a year ago? The new situation has arisen because of high interest rates and the strength of the pound. On mixed farms, when beef was down, farmers could continue to survive through milk cheques and payments relating to other sectors, but now all sectors are down. That is why the current situation is such a crisis.

Mr. Chisholm: I accept that point. The Government are giving it further consideration, although some of the factors, such as high interest rates, have to do with the incipient inflation we inherited from the previous Government.
The hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) referred to the deboning issue. I am well aware of the effect on the industry of the measures we had to take. Although the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee perceived the risk from that source to be extremely small, it was only prudent—given the policy of successive Governments of regarding public health as paramount—that we should take action to safeguard the consumer.
Time is running short, but I should like to refer briefly to the BSE inquiry referred to by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make an announcement about that soon. Time will not allow me to mention reform of the common agricultural policy, except to say that we are keen to achieve that, and CAP reform proposals set out in Agenda 2000 are an important step in the right direction.
As I have already said, rural policy reaches into almost every public policy. We have had an interesting and informed debate. The Government are committed to a living countryside and we are sure that the measures we are putting in place will ensure the maintenance of vibrant, productive local communities.

Cycling

Mr. Charles Clarke: I welcome this debate, which is the first one on cycling for many years. It is particularly timely given the Kyoto conference on the environment and the Government's review of integrated transport policy. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that because they are following a course that will be extremely effective, and I want cycling to play its part in the debate.
I should declare an interest as chairman of the all-party cycling group, which has more than 40 members and is growing all the time. It hopes that the views expressed in the debate will be taken into account by the Government. I am sure that that will happen. I am particularly grateful to see that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, is present. He is well known throughout the House for his long-term commitment on this matter and for his campaigning to raise the status of cycling in various guises. I am sure that in the unfortunate circumstances of his party coming to power again, the battlefield means of transport would shift from the armoured personnel carrier to the bicycle.
The purpose of the debate is to stress the need for the Government to have a co-ordinated and coherent strategy to promote cycling in all areas. We believe that that strategy will reduce congestion, promote the Government's general environmental policies and promote public health. That is why we believe that cycling must be regarded as a vital part of the Government's overall transport policies.
I should emphasise that I speak not on behalf of the 1 million cyclists in Britain—although that figure is significant—but on behalf of many more people who would like to cycle if only they felt able to do so but are inhibited from doing so for a number of different reasons. The following figures sum up the current problem: 90 per cent. of children have bikes; 2 per cent. of them cycle to school; and 17 per cent. of cars travelling at 9 am every morning are taking children to and from school—an average journey of about 1.8 miles. The absence of cycling routes increases congestion, makes cycling more dangerous and makes the condition of our environment worse. We want to replace that vicious circle with a virtuous one.
Many people want to cycle, but fail to do so. A number of statistics support that claim. In 1975–76, 14 households in every 100 had a bike. Last year, 30 households in every 100 had a bike. That represents a dramatic increase in the number of bicycles in Britain—23 million bikes are kept by British households. In the past decade, however, bicycle usage has gone down by 20 per cent. at the same time as the ownership of bikes has doubled. That illustrates as well as any figure could the fact that many people want to cycle but are inhibited from doing so.
The pattern of cycling varies across the country. According to the 1991 census, 27 per cent. of people cycle in Cambridge; 18 per cent. in York; 15 per cent. in Gosport; 11 per cent. in Crewe; and 10 per cent. in Grimsby. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is in his place because he has been a long-standing parliamentary advocate of cycling. In Norwich, the figure stands at 3 per cent., although we are trying to push it up. Those figures


reveal the variety of bicycle use across the country, ranging as it does from the top level of 27 per cent. to 3 per cent. in cities such as Norwich. One must compare that with the 43 per cent. bicycle use recorded in Delft in Holland or Munster in Germany—what a dramatic difference.
As the Government's figures suggest, United Kingdom bicycle use is low when compared to that internationally. The figures show that 2 per cent. of journeys in the United Kingdom are made by bicycle, compared with 10 per cent. in Sweden; 11 per cent. in Germany; 15 per cent. in Switzerland—which is so flat, of course!—and 18 per cent. in Denmark. Those figures show that the number of people who cycle is not simply a matter of geographic convenience but depends on whether respective Governments have focused their policies on making such journeys work.
Consider what has happened in Munich, a great city which is not generally considered to be occupied by green cyclists, veggie eaters and all the rest of it. It has increased the number of bike journeys to work from 6 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the past three years by means of properly focused policies.
The scope for such an increase in bicycle use in Britain exists if local and national Government apply themselves to introducing policies to put cycling at the core of an integrated transport strategy. The Royal Automobile Club estimates that 8 per cent. of car journeys, one in 12, are of less than a mile. That is equivalent to a five-minute cycle ride—less if one is the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. It also estimates that 25 per cent. of car journeys cover less than two miles, which is equivalent to a 10-minute cycle ride.
The desire to increase the use of bicycles also exists and has been admirably set out in the Government's discussion paper, "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy". Cycling is an option for the vast majority of people, including those under the age of 16 to whom many other forms of transport are not available. It is affordable and helps the poorest in our country. A journey by bicycle can be made door to door, a service which public transport, despite its advantages, often cannot offer. An increase in the number of journeys by bicycle would reduce congestion—one of the Government's principal goals—and cut CO2 emissions in our atmosphere, so improving air quality and health.
What are the inhibitions on the use of the bicycle, given that so many people own a bike and yet fewer and fewer people are using them? There are three fundamental inhibitions that it is within the Government's power to address. The first and most obvious is the danger involved. For understandable reasons, many parents will not permit their children to cycle to school because of the risks involved. The second inhibition relates to the storage and security of a bike at the place of work or wherever the journey may end. The third inhibition relates to convenience and comfort.
We could attack the problems of danger if the Government committed themselves to creating an integrated high-quality network of cycle routes throughout our cities. The Sustrans initiative—I should declare an interest as one of its patrons—has been outstanding. It has made and will continue to make major improvements in

the level of cycling, but its efforts are by no means enough. In every town and city we need an integrated transport route strategy to ensure that people can conveniently and safely cycle from home to school or to their place of work or wherever.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hon. Members are listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, whose comments we support. Given the role of district and borough councils and the highway authorities, which are often county councils, one of the best things would be to encourage those organisations to work out what would help their staff to travel to work by bicycle. They should make all their staff, not just the bicycling officers, sensitive to what could be done easily, fast and cheaply to encourage bicycle use. That would set an example that could be followed by other employers.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I agree that the role of employers is critical. They spend large amounts of money subsidising company cars and other items which are not in their best interests and, in many cases, it would be much cheaper and better for them to encourage their employees to cycle to and from work where that is feasible.
We need a high-quality integrated network of cycle routes throughout the country. The Cyclists Touring Club has estimated that it would cost £130 million a year over 10 years to establish such a network. Compare that with the expenses incurred in my region, the eastern region, on motorway building. The estimated cost of projects and schemes in preparation for the widening of junctions 10 to 14 of the M1—as recorded in the Government's roads review, so the work may not go ahead—is £228.5 million. Compare that with the £130 million needed to develop a national cycle network. The M1 junctions 6 to 10 widening will cost £105.9 million, and the A14 improvement, £122.3 million. Those are some of the schemes in my region. The cause of the nation's health and the environment would be advanced if, in the Government's roads review, they tried to put that integrated high-quality cycle network in place throughout the country, rather than widening a few bits of motorway and adding sliproads here and there.
It is particularly important to focus on the issue of safety around schools—the reduction of car speed and protected access to the cycle route are crucial. Experience abroad shows that the more cycles are used, the less dangerous cycling is. Some of the fashionable newspapers are portraying cyclists and pedestrians as being in conflict. When such a conflict occurs, it is bad, but it is nothing like as bad as the conflict between the cyclist and the motorist, as a result of which the cyclist may end up dead or seriously injured. The way to deal with that is to ensure that cyclists are not forced to choose between dangerous roads and illegal pavements. There should be a proper cycle route.
Secondly, on storage and security, it is critical that when people cycle to work or school, they can leave their bike in safety and park it in a proper facility, and that there should be facilities for them to shower, change their clothes and store their cycling gear.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) was extremely pertinent. Several employers are taking initiatives and working with


Transport 2000—for example, the Royal Mail, Hewlett Packard, the Body Shop and a number of public sector bodies—to try to achieve the kind of co-operation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I hope that as part of the integrated policy, the Government will approach employers and employers' organisations to encourage cycle use among employees, and that the Government, as a major employer, will do likewise.
In schools, cycle storage is not available now, as it used to be. Some heads actively discourage children from cycling to school. I was about to make a joke about the historic role of the bike shed in British education, but perhaps that would not be appropriate in a tidy debate such as this. Government support for schools to provide proper storage facilities for bikes is an important element which the sustainable roads for schools programme seeks to encourage.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the people who can influence others, such as teachers, school governors going to their meetings, and parents, started cycling instead of pointing the finger and telling other people to cycle while they themselves go around in their 1.5 tonne steel waistcoat with the radio blaring, it would be far more likely to help others to put that into practice? Could we start by encouraging Westminster city council, with or without the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to put an advance stop line for bicyclists at the bottom of Whitehall, and make a bicycle lane as well, and perhaps close the gates of the House of Commons car park for one day a year?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the all-party group had a useful meeting yesterday with the councillors who chair the environment and transport committee of Westminster city council, and also with the people who run the royal parks. We spoke about the specific matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, and also about general issues. The councillors said that they were committed to providing proper bike parking around the Palace of Westminster for visitors. We are pursuing the matter with the Serjeant at Arms.
I take this opportunity to advertise the fact that 10 June next year will be National Bicycle Day—the Wednesday in the middle of National Bicycle Week. We will be organising a bicycle ride in which we hope that as many Members of Parliament as possible will do their bit to encourage people to cycle to work that day, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. David Lock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the integrated transport strategy is crucial, and that more than one Department has a role to play? May I invite him to develop his argument on the role of employers and to reflect on the role of the planning authorities, which receive applications for new places of employment? Does not planning policy provide a great opportunity to require and encourage employers to make proper facilities available, so that they are built into every new place of work?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend—and especially with his point that it is a matter not just for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but for a wide range of Government

Departments, including the Cabinet Office, which is at the centre of government as an employer. The national health service clearly has an interest in promoting health, and hospitals and health facilities are both a massive employer, and places where a massive number of people go. The Department for Education and Employment has a critical role to play in promoting safe cycling to school.
On planning, I agree that the goal should be to reduce out-of-city building, and to plan new developments—retail developments, hospitals, places of work or whatever—with the shortest possible lines of communication between the development and the people who are likely to go there. That in itself would encourage transport by bicycle.
Thirdly, with reference to comfort and convenience, I shall cite the results of a controlled exercise: a cyclist took 13 minutes to cover the 3.5 miles from Camden lock to St. Paul's cathedral. The same journey took 20 minutes by cab, 29 minutes by car, 32 minutes by tube and 40 minutes by bus. That is an interesting illustration of the fact that the bike can be convenient, effective and speedy. If we could simply solve the problems of danger and proper storage, people would choose to use the bike, because of the convenience.
That also involves a proper exchange between the bicycle and other forms of transport—the fashionable term is intermodal transport. The obvious example is the train, and the argument entails another virtuous circle—if proper bike parks are available around commuting stations, more people will cycle to the bike park, leave their bike securely and travel by train, rather than driving. That would increase business for the train company and benefit the environment.
I am pleased to say that Anglia Railways, which is the train operator between London and Norwich, has won several awards. The company is grateful to the Minister for Transport in London for presenting those awards at a ceremony at Liverpool Street station a few months ago. Anglia Railways removed travel restrictions on bicycles, reduced the bicycle fare from £3 to £1 and was awarded the first cycle mark by Sustrans at the presentation that I mentioned. The company has further plans to increase capacity for cycles by January next year.
Such initiatives are important. In the context of convenience and cost for cyclists, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for her determined campaign for the granting of cycle allowances by the House and more generally. She is working extremely hard, with our full support.
I hope that I have made the case that the Government could make a big difference to cycle use in Britain by drawing up a coherent and co-ordinated strategy. That would improve the health of the nation and the environment, as other countries have shown. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to that course, and I hope that she and her colleagues in the Department will listen to the contributions in the debate and reflect our concerns in the White Paper to be published at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate this morning. It is important not least because the House rarely gets to


debate this issue—I am not sure that there has been a debate specifically about cycling in this place before. Cycling is vital to the creation of an integrated transport strategy. We expect to hear news today from Kyoto about the outcome of the climate change conference. Sadly, it is likely that any proposals will be inadequate. Nevertheless, changing our transport system and encouraging people to use non-polluting forms of transport is crucial to securing reduced pollution levels and improving our climate.
"Get on yer bike" was a phrase somewhat abused by the previous Government, but it is an increasingly important option in the face of unsustainable growth in road traffic. Cycling is both healthy and non-polluting, and it can play an important part in developing an efficient, integrated transport system. That said, there would be little point in this place's pretending that, in the next 10 years, for example, the bicycle will overtake the car as the preferred form of transport for many types of journey. However, the car need not be people's first preference for every type of journey, as it is at present.
The car should be only one of many ways of getting from A to B—and it should certainly not be the mode of transport most encouraged by Government policy in terms of planning, the roads system and the tax system. In a properly integrated transport system, people should be able to use different travel combinations—car, public transport or bicycles—depending on what is most suited to their journey, and they should have the facilities that make their choice practical.
At present, the car is not only over-used but literally pushing everything else off the road. The Liberal Democrats have long argued that providing everyone with the means to reach work, shops and schools is possible sustainably only if different forms of transport do not conflict with each other and are brought together in an integrated transport strategy. We must ensure that the car does not overwhelm other more environmentally sound ways to travel. We must make travelling much more straightforward so that people do not always feel the need to turn to their cars.
For example, if a train passenger were able to leave his bike at a station in a secure place or take his bike on the train to use at his destination without excessive restrictions or penalty fares, the journey would be quicker and simpler than one that involved sitting in traffic or parking the car. However, in truth, the current rail system is more often a foe than a friend of cycling because it places many obstructions in the way of cyclists. The challenge is to create a system in which cycle routes link with public transport over longer distances so that green transport options are not only the most sustainable but the easiest route to follow. We need to integrate cycling literally into our transport system.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised the urgent need for a complete overhaul of our approach to transport in Britain with the publication of the integrated transport consultation paper. I look forward to the outcome of that process and I hope that cycling will play a full part in the document's conclusions. It is certainly a contrast to the ostrich approach that characterised much of the previous Government's transport policy. The Conservatives ignored the environmental and congestion problems and seemed to pull their heads out of the sand only to give the go-ahead to one road scheme

or another. More often than not, such schemes did not relieve congestion but simply transferred it, thus exacerbating the problems that they were meant to solve.
To be fair, the previous Government eventually gave some recognition to the possible contribution that cycling could make to rationalising the transport system by introducing the national cycling strategy. That strategy, which has been adopted by this Government, seeks a fourfold increase in cycling by 2012. Given that cycling accounts for less than 2 per cent. of trips in this country—the hon. Gentleman referred to cycling levels in other countries, including 11 per cent. in Germany and 15 per cent. in Switzerland—an increase to 8 per cent. over the next 15 years is perhaps not such an ambitious target. In any case, the real issue is not the target but how Ministers intend to achieve it.
Today I shall briefly touch on some of the major schemes that have been developed to encourage cycling in Britain and how I believe that the Government could take them much further. The safe routes to school project, which has been referred to already, is funded basically by local authorities and Sustrans. It addresses one of the most pressing problems currently facing cycling in Britain: the problem of safety and, perhaps more accurately, of fear on the part of children who cycle and their parents. Nobody enjoys sitting in rush-hour traffic: it is both stressful and time-consuming. It is also often unnecessary. Much rush-hour traffic, especially in urban areas, is caused by people making short local journeys that could be made quickly and more safely in other ways.
The recent national travel survey found that, before 9 am during term time, about one in every five cars were taking children to school. On average, such trips are less than two miles long. If parents and pupils felt happy cycling or walking to school, there would be a great deal less traffic in the morning and thus less pollution and less danger. That would encourage more people to walk and cycle, thereby creating a virtuous cycle.
In contrast, a vicious circle exists at present. Increasing car use has made cycling and walking to school more dangerous, so more parents decide to use the car and school routes become even more dangerous. The safe routes to school initiative seeks to break that circle by taking people out of their cars and on to safe cycle routes that both parents and children can use without fear. That would get polluting traffic off the roads and help to reverse the declining level of fitness in Britain, thereby creating real long-term health benefits.
That is an excellent project, but it exists only because of funding from a charitable organisation and because some local authorities have managed to find the money. Limited funding means that the project is able to cover only a handful of areas. The Government must look closely at how they can expand their at present limited role and ensure that safe routes to school are available to all Britain's schoolchildren. That involves looking at planning guidance and reducing traffic speed around schools. For example, 20 mph limits around schools and active traffic-calming measures could be introduced. It means supporting schools in providing proper storage facilities for bikes and encouraging both parents and children to cycle. It also means providing local authority funding for that work—a point to which I shall return later.
The National Cycle Network will provide another welcome boost to the campaign to improve safety for cyclists through the creation of 2,500 miles of traffic-free and traffic-calmed paths by 2000. I congratulate Sustrans on securing more than £40 million from the Millennium Commission to fund that innovative scheme, which involves planning cycle tracks along disused railways and towpaths and creating routes not only for work or school but for tourism. It will bring money into, and traffic away from, many of this country's most beautiful areas.
The National Cycle Network will bring the health and environmental benefits of cycling to many areas. However, many of its plans are running into difficulty or face substantial delay. Although it is a millennium project, very little of it will be completed by the millennium. Cash-strapped local authorities are finding it hard, if not impossible, to provide their portion of the funding for their sections of the cycle network. Many local authorities are experiencing difficulties in that area, and the case of Derbyshire was raised with me. The network route between Derby and Burton-on-Trent and between Derby and Nottingham has been postponed.
My home country of Cornwall has difficulty not only with its sections of the cycle network but with its own ambitious cycle path proposal, the Cornish way. The latter project has been on hold for more than a year since the Millennium Commission turned down an application for funding. The project aims to provide a network of eight routes throughout the county not only for cyclists but for walkers and the mobility-impaired. Given the Cornish economy's reliance on tourism, the delay is economically costly. Although the county council is providing all the funding that it can, the Cornish way scheme must now look to Sustrans for assistance. However, Sustrans has little to offer in the way of financial support. Meanwhile, the recently announced local government settlement has cut the county's highways budget even further in cash terms, which guarantees that even fewer discretionary projects will get off the ground.
All local authority cycleway spending has been under pressure since the previous Government's local transport settlement, which was announced last December and which cut the total money available for minor works and safety schemes from £177 million to £139 million. As that budget is the only source of funding for cycle measures, many local authorities, not just Cornwall, have had to suspend cycle schemes in this financial year. Safe routes for schoolchildren have had to be postponed, for example, in Cambridgeshire and in Hertfordshire, as have railway partnership schemes to improve facilities at stations for cyclists in Hampshire. That makes nonsense of the supposed national cycling strategy. We are falling further and further behind in pursuing the initiatives that we want.
At present, funding for cycling is simply not adequate. Research by Transport 2000 shows that just 2 per cent. of local authority transport capital spending goes to cyclists. By contrast, the German environment department recommends that its regional governments spend £20 per head on cycling, 100 times that spent in the United Kingdom, where local authorities are able to spare only 20p per head to turn motorists into cyclists. However much it may be argued that local authorities can transfer things, with that gap, we need to consider the overall funding system. A lot of funding could be found from

the tax incentives and other incentives that are given to motorists to drive. That is a good source for the Government to consider.
Cycling can save money. Recent evidence shows that congestion on roads costs the nation £15 billion annually in terms of national health service, health and environment costs and the congestion's effect on the atmosphere overall. We will deal with that only by creating a genuinely integrated transport system, such as cycleways connecting people with school, work or other forms of transport. Funding must reflect the importance of such a system.
The Government have announced further cuts in local government standard spending assessments for transport in 1998–99. I urge the Minister to fight the corner for improved funding for those schemes to ensure that we have not only an integrated transport strategy but, as it were, an integrated budget strategy for the environment and transport.
I hope that Members of Parliament will win the battle to have cycling allowances alongside the generous incentives that we have for motoring. Perhaps at the same time the Minister could deal with the fact that, if members of the public who do not normally have access to this place cycle here, they are not allowed to park their bicycle, but are turned away. As cyclists are banned from locking up their bikes in the streets around Westminster, that seems an extraordinary system. I understand the security issues, but I hope that that rule will be changed.

Valerie Davey: This welcome debate takes place at an auspicious time in the context of the Kyoto conference. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) have mentioned Sustrans, a charitable company that was formed by an imaginative, creative and forward-looking group of people in Bristol in 1979, and that considered in particular how we could have a sustainable integrated transport system, with a focus on cycling.
To increase the percentage of journeys that are made by cyclists, we are looking for a safe and attractive infrastructure—with traffic-free routes and traffic-calmed roads, where often the speed limit should be only 20 mph—and for a clear lead from central Government, local government and the media to sustain cycling as a modern form of transport that should be encouraged. Sustrans, which had that vision in 1979, has been working hard. It has already put forward, built and designed 250 miles of traffic-free routes for both cyclists and pedestrians. As has been mentioned, in 1995, it was awarded the first Millennium Commission project to build the national cycle network. By 2005, that project will provide 6,500 miles of cycle routes, which will go through city centres and include safe routes to school and work and easy access to the countryside—all without the use of the car. That is what is needed to raise cycling's profile.
Sustrans has drawn my attention to the fact that, in this country, 70 per cent. of all journeys are under five miles. Most of them, of course, could be made by cycling. It is worth remembering that most of the people who are responsible for making decisions about transport travel much further than that to work and may have a different perspective on the use of transport generally.
Cycling is relatively cheap, yet that millennium project, imaginative as it is, will cost about £180 million. A quarter of it has come from lottery funding. Much more is being raised in other ways, but transport money will also be needed. The Government's contribution towards the aim of opening the first 2,500 miles by midsummer's day of the year 2000, is to provide for 63 new and 38 modified road crossings. I hope that the Government will be able to confirm that we are on schedule and will recognise, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said, that Government funding will be needed within local government financing to complete the urban sections of the network. Billions have been spent on roads, but spending millions on cycle routes would contribute significantly to a better transport system and to reducing the crisis on our roads.
While Sustrans has been making that important national contribution, which many individual cyclists support, my constituents have come up with some more immediate priorities, which echo some of the points that have been made. The first concern is that there should be a clear and combined cycle-rail transport scheme. In Denmark, for example, 35 per cent. of people who use rail reach the station by cycling. In Germany, the figure is 15 per cent., but in Britain less than 1 per cent. of people cycle to the station and continue their journey by cycle at the other end.
The position in my constituency of Bristol, West is interesting. Cyclists may use a local branch line, the Severn-Beach, which has received support from local government, free of charge without the need to book, but, if they reach Bristol Temple Meads—although the security for cycles there has been improved if they wish to leave their bike—and want to travel to a further destination with their bike, they are faced with three different operators, offering different charges and different conditions, with or without booking. That complicated system needs to change if we are to encourage cycling to the station and an onward journey with the bike. A common policy would encourage cycling.
Secondly, individuals are looking for more traffic-calming measures in residential areas. It seems that the Bristol cycle campaign, which was inaugurated six years ago with the main objective of achieving 20 mph speed limits in urban areas, was setting a precedent. Many more people want a national slowdown initiative to reduce the speed of traffic, particularly in residential areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South mentioned accident levels at different speeds. May I spell that out? At 40 mph, an accident involving a pedestrian will almost certainly lead to loss of life. At 30 mph, the pedestrian has a 50:50 chance of survival. At 20 mph, usually only one in 20 will have a fatal accident. It is so logical to reduce speed limits. In addition, in the urban context, driving at 20 mph—remembering of course that the majority of those journeys are under five miles—will add only one minute to the journey time.
We should see cycling as an important part of an integrated transport system. It can be enjoyable, and many more people could take it up. An integrated transport system with more cyclists could, as we have already heard, benefit health, local communities and the environment.
I am sorry that the Chamber is not packed this morning, but I know that many House of Commons staff cycle, and I am delighted to see bicycles as I walk through the Courtyard. I hope that more Members, more staff and more people everywhere are encouraged to cycle by the Government's policy and the work initiated by Sustrans.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The debate is fascinating, but the case for encouraging cycling is so obvious that we should not have to put it in such a little debate; it should be central to Government policy. It was powerfully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I congratulate on initiating the debate.
There is an environmental case for cycling: it relieves congestion. As has been said several times, most journeys are short—70 per cent. of car journeys are less than five miles—and ideally would be taken on a bicycle. There is also a health argument. Although cycling is compatible with being overweight in my case—and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South—it is a healthy pleasure. Then there is the convenience aspect. I used to live in Kilburn before my wife had delusions of grandeur and decided to move us up in the world to Victoria, where it is hardly worth getting the bike out. It used to take me 25 minutes to cycle in from Kilburn—although that was when I was at the peak of fitness; I was a young contender in politics then—but it took me between 45 minutes and an hour to come in by car, and 45 minutes on the tube.
Given the strength of the argument for cycling, it is amazing that so little is being done. Other countries do much more. In this country, cycling is regarded as a slightly cranky occupation. I wish that my hon. Friend had shorn his beard, partly to help his career in the Labour party but also to present a slightly less cranky image of cycling.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: What about your tie?

Mr. Mitchell: That is not a cranky image; it is a fashionable image.
Cycling is regarded as cranky and quirky. People pay lip service to it, but they do not do anything. A dynamic drive from the top downwards is needed to push the case for cycling, and to bring it into all transport considerations. Pious words and endless deference—which, it is fair to say, we do hear—are not enough. I do not know why more is not done, but encouraging cycling is central to the improvement that we need. Use breeds interest. The more people cycle, the safer cycling is—and, as all the figures show, the fewer people cycle, the more dangerous it is. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are more people on cycles, but fewer people use their cycles to make, for instance, the journey to work. We must remove the obstacles to cycling. That means recognition of what the obstacles are, and a massive effort to get rid of them. The all-party cycling group will do its best, but the drive must come from Ministers, as well as from local authorities.
What are the obstacles that need to be removed? One of the main problems experienced by cyclists—particularly in London, but I experience it in Grimsby. in Yorkshire as a whole and, indeed, all over the


country—is that, having cycled somewhere because, in general, it is more convenient to cycle a short distance than to walk or drive, they have nowhere to put their bicycles. That is a perennial and pressing problem. There are signs defacing railings everywhere, especially in London, saying that police will remove cycles—but what better use is there for railings, except where dogs are concerned, than as somewhere to lock cycles so that they are not stolen? The signs are a monstrosity: we should be able to put our cycles somewhere. There should be facilities at workplaces, and also in the street. Why are there no cycle parks in central positions in London? Why are there not cycle parks at more railway and bus stations, so that people can combine cycling with other forms of transport?
Even at the House of Commons there is cycle storage space, but the facilities at Norman Shaw are pathetic. Cyclists compete for places with great bags of rubbish which, when moved, usually knock all the cycles over. When I lean my cycle against the wall, it is then moved because it is an inconvenience. Cycle storage space at work is essential.
Facilities for changing are also essential. I tend not to cycle in my fashionable suits—I prefer to cycle in a pair of jeans and a shirt—but I sometimes cycle to the House in a suit. When people shuffle away from me during debates, it is not because of my politics, old Labour though they are; it is because, having cycled in, I am hot and sweaty, and there are no facilities to enable me to shower and change my clothes. The facilities are few enough here, but in most other places they are pathetic.
There should be more emphasis on safety, so that people feel more confident. I would make crash helmets compulsory. More cycling routes should be designated—not just routes through parks, which we discussed yesterday in the all-party cycling group, but on the roads. As others have said, we also need traffic-calming measures. Traffic should be slower in the vicinity of schools, so that children will be encouraged to cycle to school. My heart goes out to mothers with small children perched on the back of their bicycles. When I see my daughter taking my grandchildren to school on the back of her bike, it worries me enormously.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Should we not re-examine the question of roundabouts? When the local authority in Cambridge discovered that most accidents to cyclists took place at roundabouts, they removed them, which led to a significant reduction in the number of casualties.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree entirely. There should also be designated places at traffic lights, so that cars do not suddenly sweep across cyclists to turn left when the cyclists are going straight ahead.
Bicycles should be better designed. I am tempted to buy a small collapsible bicycle, but I am so tall that when I ride such bicycles they wobble all over the place, because the saddle and the handlebars are so extended. It is like riding a jelly—or perhaps I am the jelly. Nevertheless, portable bicycles are very useful, as are bicycles with facilities for carrying things. When I was cycling from Kilburn, I lost the manuscript of a book that set out the whole case for new Labour. [Laughter.] No, no: it forecast accurately everything that needed to happen to the party. That was in the early 1980s. I sometimes

wonder whether the manuscript was discovered in the park through which I was cycling by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. Perhaps that was the beginning of his rise to power. As far as I know, the book was never found, despite my desperate inquiries of the police; but its suggestions have certainly been implemented by the Labour party. If proper carrying facilities had been available, the manuscript would not have dropped from my bike and I would now be in a powerful position rather than standing here pleading for cyclists' views to be heard.
The case for cyclists has been well put by hon. Members. We need a drive to cycling, a policy that is wider and more powerful than the enthusiasm of those of us taking part in the debate. That means a drive by local authorities to introduce cycling into all traffic developments. Grimsby in north-east Lincolnshire is a case in point and was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South. We have developed effective cycling policies, but the limitation is always finance to build cycleways and install facilities. There should be dedicated finance for local authorities to encourage cycling.
I was distressed to find that the national network of 6,500 miles will not provide facilities in such beauty spots as the Yorkshire dales, the Lincolnshire wolds and the lake district. It is just a means of getting from one end of the country to the other rather than a facility that will allow people to branch out into beautiful areas. We need imaginative national planning but most of all there must be a drive from the top to encourage cycling, and that means a Minister whose specific responsibility is to promote and develop cycling so that it is included in all considerations and decisions. That Minister would develop a financial framework to promote cycling and reward cyclists. That would bring a whole new enthusiasm to cycling matters and make it a central rather than a peripheral part of transport policy. The simple answer is to do what we have suggested and I call on the Minister to get on her bike.

Mr. David Lock: It is an enormous pleasure to speak in this important debate because cycling gives much pleasure to those who are able to engage in it. It is also a great tourist opportunity which is currently undervalued. My wife and I spent more than a year cycling abroad, an activity that enables one to see a country from the bottom up in a quiet leisurely way without making any impact on it. It is a superb way to explore a country, but although this country is ideal for such touring because the key sites are close together and many of them can be visited in a day, our roads system is inherently hostile to cyclists. We are missing a great economic opportunity.
Some people say that they cannot cycle because they have children. In the year that my wife and I cycled 5,000 miles through California, Mexico and Australia, we had a two-year-old child in a trailer on the back of the bike. If we could do it in our state—we are not quite so portly as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—I suspect that many people could do it.
I am especially concerned about children, and primarily those who cycle to school. The statistics are alarming. In 1971, some 80 per cent. of our children cycled to school,


and I was one of them. Now only 10 per cent. do that. A recent survey in Bury St. Edmunds showed that fewer than one in 20 of our children were taking the amount of exercise that is necessary to maintain minimum fitness. That is frightening. Nine out of 10 juniors own a bike but only one in four of them are allowed by their parents to cycle on the roads. As 300 children a year are killed on our roads, such parental objection is understandable in the light of a roads system that is inherently hostile to cyclists.
Denmark has 10 times the number of cyclists in Britain but as hon. Members have eloquently said, a Danish cyclist is 12 times less likely to be killed or injured per mile travelled. Some 23 per cent. of our children travel to school by car, and that accounts for one in five cars at peak times although the distances travelled are between one and two miles. Over such short distances, catalytic converters do not have time to warm up and, paradoxically, those journeys produce the highest levels of pollution.
The advantages of a national strategy to encourage children to cycle to school are overwhelming. The first of those is health: we do not want a nation of couch potatoes. We must train children to use their bodies and minds responsibly. The Health Education Authority has asked for cycling to be doubled, and the British Medical Association says that that will make a significant contribution to the nation's health. If children are encouraged to cycle early, they will keep the habit for life. If we deprive them of the opportunity to cycle early, they will not adopt that habit. Cycling provides a great opportunity to teach children independence because when cycling they make limited decisions. It will also cut congestion and protect the environment.
How are we to reach our goal? The first step is to recognise the benefits and then to invest in cycling routes as part of a rearrangement of our transport priorities. We must overcome the fear of parents and children of cycling. We can take some simple steps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said, there should be secure facilities for locking cycles. We must introduce traffic-calming measures and 20 mph zones around schools and encourage road safety and cycle training within schools. Nine out of 10 children have bicycles, and we are failing in our duty if we do not teach them to cycle safely as part of the national curriculum.
We must build on the excellent work that has been carried out under the safe routes to school project. We need better and safer junctions and car-free routes and we must build on good practice. In areas where cycling to school has been promoted, the effects are startling. Reading and York both promote cycling and now 35 per cent. of children in Reading cycle to school. That is a vast improvement on previous statistics and those children reap the benefit and get into the habit of cycling. As hon. Members have said, what we need most is guidance from the top for a comprehensive and properly funded strategy. The targets in the national cycling strategy are impressive, but without the necessary drive we will fail to reach them, just as the previous Government failed to reach the "Health of the Nation" targets. Labour is in government and I hope that policies will be implemented to make sure that, for everybody's benefit, the targets are met.

Mr. Chris Ruane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. I should like to relay my experiences from my constituency. In the past seven years, two road projects for bypasses were planned for my area—one for Rhyl and one for Prestatyn. The Rhyl project was to cost £17 million and the Prestatyn one £10 million. The terminology is interesting. Initially, they were called bypasses but when the business community found that it was to be bypassed the projects were called relief roads.
Some £27 million was to be spent on two relief roads that were unwanted and unnecessary. A massive petition was presented and the two projects were knocked on the head. Compare those unnecessary projects, costing £27 million, with the £42 million that the lottery, a charity, gave to Sustrans. What is our priority? Is it to promote unnecessary and unwanted roads, or to promote a strategic cycleway system for the United Kingdom?
Before being elected to the House, I taught in a large primary school which had 560 pupils. I attended the same school in the 1960s. In the 1960s, my school had bicycle sheds that were filled to overflowing with bicycles. On my most recent visit there, in September 1997, I saw one bicycle chained to the fence. The bicycle sheds had gone, and one pupil out of 560 had cycled to school. That situation is mirrored in towns and cities across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) said that our children are being turned into couch potatoes. It is true. Their parents drive them to their destination, because they believe that the roads are too dangerous. The more children are driven to school, the more road traffic will increase: the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling, and fears increasingly become justified.
Provision of off-road cycleways specifically for schoolchildren would bring great benefits to the United Kingdom. It would encourage children to cycle and take regular exercise from an early age—which is the critical factor, because children establish patterns for life at an early age. Schoolchildren cycling to school would drastically reduce the 8.30 am and 3.30 pm rush hours caused by school runs, thereby reducing traffic, the number of accidents—especially those involving children—and pollution levels.
When I served as a councillor in my community, I participated in a project to discover what local schoolchildren wanted. In nine local schools, we asked 600 children, ranging in age from seven to 16, what facilities they wanted in their tourist-oriented town. They did not want more "palaces of culture"—a euphemism for slot machine arcades. They wanted pure and simple things: the first was cycleways and the second was ice rinks.
All the jigsaw pieces are in place. There is demand for cycling, and people own bikes. Parents, however, are reluctant to allow or encourage their children to cycle because of perceived dangers. The Government should be concentrating their energy on the young, whose attitudes and life styles are still being formed.
I ask Ministers to listen to the many valid points made in this debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I urge the Government to lead the way in promoting cycling by providing finance, co-ordination


and—most importantly, as has been said many times in this debate—vision, so that cycling can play its full role in an integrated transport system.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. He was absolutely right to begin his speech by recognising my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) as a key factor in the development of cycling policy in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman did not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—who did sterling work with the all-party cycling group—but I am sure that that was a mere oversight.
I should declare my interest as a cyclist. I am a member of the Dorset cyclists network, a long-standing member of the tandem club and the owner of not only a tandem but a tandem trailer. For hon. Members who have not seen my tandem and tandem trailer together, it is approximately the same length as a Volvo estate. I have also participated with my family in the mass cycle ride in Christchurch, which was initiated to celebrate the 900th anniversary of Christchurch priory but has now become a very popular annual event in Christchurch during environment week. I have participated also in "Healthy Bike Ride", which was promoted by local general practitioners.
I agree with the priorities stated by the hon. Member for Norwich, South to deal with the barriers to people starting cycling—especially the problems of safety and danger, storage and security, and convenience and comfort.
Cycling is not and should not be a party political issue. I am delighted that the Government have endorsed the national cycling strategy—initiated by the previous Government—of doubling cycle use by 2002 and quadrupling it by 2012. However, the Library tells me that there is no specific mention of cycling in the Government's consultation on integrated transport. That is an extraordinary oversight which the Government will have to face up to.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) essentially asked the Minister to get on her bike. I am worried about rumours that she never cycles. It has even been rumoured that she cannot ride a bike. If that is true and the result of some phobia, may I offer to take her out on my tandem? Perhaps I can introduce her to the joys of the open road.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Thanks to the policies of the previous Government, we now have very severe traffic congestion in many of our cities. I am fortunate in living in Cambridge, which has tried to cater for cyclists. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that in many cities cycling is quite hazardous and should not be undertaken lightly or with little preparation?

Mr. Chope: I thought that the hon. Lady was going to say that cycling should not be undertaken with a Minister on the back of a tandem. She has anticipated the burden of my remarks, which will emphasise the safety problems.
The Liberal Democrats' contribution to the debate, as usual, has been long on need for more money. I take issue with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell

(Mr. Taylor) in saying that the previous Government were ostrich-like, taking their head out of the sand only when approving roads schemes. I remember going to the hon. Gentleman's constituency as Minister with responsibility for roads on many occasions to open roads schemes such as improvements to the A30 for which he had campaigned, and he is campaigning for more improvements.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been campaigning for full dualling of a trunk road in his constituency, and everyone knows that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was campaigning vigorously for a bypass in his constituency. Across the country, Liberal Democrats are campaigning for increased roads expenditure. They are campaigning even in the county of Dorset, for completion of the Poole bridge. They are also promoting a scheme for a new road near Wareham. The Liberal Democrats are therefore committed to increasing roads expenditure.

Mr. Bob Russell: Perhaps we can return to the subject of the debate, which is cycling. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the previous Government spent too much, too little or just the right amount on cycling provision?

Mr. Chope: Cycling provision is largely a responsibility for local authorities, and most cycling is done on local roads. Perhaps not the hon. Gentleman, but hon. Members who understand how responsibilities are shared out will realise that responsibility for local roads is for local authorities. It is up to them to decide on what priority they will accord to investment in cycling.
As I said, the safety issue is paramount, because it is the main barrier to participation in cycling. The fact is that cycling is now as dangerous as motor cycling. Some hon. Members talk about the perception of cycling as dangerous, but it is the reality: cycling is indeed dangerous.
The report on road accidents in Great Britain in 1995 shows that whereas in 1975 motor cycles were three times as dangerous as pedal cycles per 100 million vehicle kilometres covered, by 1995 they were about the same. In that period, the danger of riding a motor cycle had fallen to one third of what it was before. The danger of riding a pedal cycle, having dropped in 1985, increased in 1995 to a level similar to what it was in 1975. I am keen that we should increase participation in cycling, but to do so we must overcome the real dangers involved.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the danger is a product of the culture of the Tory Government for 18 years? They were a captive of the road lobby and indulged in the philosophy of building more roads, causing people to buy more cars, then building more roads, again causing people to buy more cars. In that situation, cycling is bound to become more dangerous. The need is for a national policy of integrating cycling into transport so that we give it a push.

Mr. Chope: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must consider ordinary, everyday cycling. Why are only 1 per cent. of journeys to school made by bicycle? I can remember cycling to school down the old Bath road. The reason why it is dangerous to cycle on the roads is that the provision for cyclists is often inadequate. Increased investment is needed to deal with the problem.
In recent years, three members of the Dorset police have been seriously injured while cycling. Two suffered extensive head injuries and one was severely and permanently disabled. Horrible cycling accidents take place all too frequently. A few weeks ago, there was a serious hit-and-run accident on the Christchurch bypass in which a cyclist, Mr. House, was killed on his way to the Conservative club. Sadly, he is not the only cyclist who has been killed near my constituency. A prominent member of the New Forest cycling club was killed on the A35 while cycling up a hill near Holmsley. The accident was caused by there being no extra space on that road for cyclists. We ignore the dangers of cycling at our peril. If we cannot persuade parents that it is safe for children to cycle to school, we should not encourage them to put their children on bicyclesz and send them off to school.
I urge the Government to spend more money on basic highway maintenance. The Government have announced in this year's grant settlement that they will reduce by 0.5 per cent. the money available nationally for spending on highway maintenance. This is at a time when the use of roads is increasing dramatically and inflation is also increasing. The Government seem to regard spending by local authorities on the road network—and that includes expenditure to fill in the potholes that are a nightmare for cyclists—as less important than the previous Government did.
We need a policy of zero tolerance towards bad cycling. A few years ago, my wife was knocked to the ground by a cycle courier who was travelling at speed the wrong way down a one-way street. We need to penalise cyclists who intimidate pedestrians and force them off the pavement. In the past year, there have been four prosecutions for such cycling in Dorset and the problem is becoming more widespread. The reason is that cyclists are being forced off the roads on to the pavements.

Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman refers to zero tolerance. Surely it is more important that we should have zero tolerance of motorists who drive too fast and too close to cyclists, who are then forced off the road—whether well maintained or otherwise—on to the pavement. That produces the problem that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Chope: I do not defend bad driving by car or lorry drivers which contributes to accidents. One problem cyclists face is encountering potholes. They have either to swerve out into the road or to go through the pothole risking a buckled wheel. Potholes are a real problem and I am concerned that the Minister does not understand the nitty-gritty issue of what it is like to cycle along roads with potholes. I fear that until she does we shall not get the investment in the local highway network that the country deserves. Let us remove the largest barrier to entry into cycling—the barrier caused by the danger to cyclists.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) on affording the House an

opportunity this morning to debate what has been an overlooked and underrated form of transport. He was courteous and generous in paying tribute not only to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), but to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) who, I am pleased to say, has joined us for this debate. I pay tribute to her sterling work on the issue of rates for Members of Parliament who are cyclists.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) began by pointing out that the debate had been remarkably apolitical, but he then tried to reduce it to a mere party political rant. He also misinformed the House. Cycling is indeed part of the Government's consultation document on an integrated transport strategy—and I can cycle. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of tuition but, given the lamentable lack of leadership and direction that is the hallmark of his party, I must decline his kind offer—I would think twice if he offered to lead me across a road, potholed or otherwise.
Hon. Members on both sides have expressed their concern about the decline of cycling in recent years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South pointed out, 20 years ago, 3.2 per cent. of all journeys on the roads were undertaken by bicycle. Regrettably, the figure is now 1.26 per cent. The average number of journeys made by bicycle per person per year has dropped from 30 to 17. Those are depressing statistics and they are even more depressing when compared with similar statistics for other European countries.
There are, however, more positive signs which indicate considerable potential to reverse the trend. Annual sales of new bicycles have grown to about 2 million, exceeding the number of new cars sold. It is estimated that there are now about 20 million bicycles in existence. About 99 per cent. of men, 89 per cent. of women and 90 per cent. of children can cycle.
Hon. Members on both sides raised the issue of children being taken by car to school. All hon. Members have a common interest in promoting and expanding safe routes to school. That point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), and by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). This is an issue on which the Government have been concentrating since we took office. We want to reduce the number of unnecessary car journeys on our roads, but there is also concern about the health of the nation's children. The lack of exercise by children is a cause for concern.
As I said, the Government are committed to safe routes to school, but we must examine the idea in the round. It requires close consultation not only with schools, school governors, teachers, parents and pupils, but with local authorities. Several schemes are up and running and they provide best practice. Our encouragement of the greater use of cycles is part of our integrated transport strategy. Not only on this but on all issues connected with cycling, we must work out how we can disseminate best practice.

Mr. Bob Russell: Is the Minister promising additional Government finance? Does she accept that there are schemes and examples of initiative and enthusiasm across the country, but they lack resources?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Liberal Democrats have spent all the money already.

Ms Jackson: As my hon. Friend points out, that miraculous 1p that the Liberal Democrats were going to


use to solve all the nation's problems has been spent 12 times. I understand that the approach of some Liberal Democrat-run local authorities to the road network is benign neglect.
The extent of the traffic congestion in the capital means that cycling now offers the fastest journey time for trips in inner London. Cycling has the potential to confer a range of positive benefits. It is widely available and gives direct, door-to-door, flexible and reliable transport at any time. It offers equivalent personal freedom to that associated with the car at a fraction of the cost, and without the negative impacts of pollution, congestion and inefficiency. In addition, cycling helps to sustain fitness—that is particularly relevant for the nation's children—and mobility for people of all ages.
Last year saw the launch of the national cycling strategy—a blueprint for cycling. It was developed by a steering group comprising central Government, local authorities, the commercial sector and voluntary organisations. That spirit of partnership remains an essential prerequisite for delivering the targets set out in the strategy, which the Government are keen to support.
The objective of the strategy is to establish a culture that favours the increased use of bicycles for all age groups. We want to develop innovative policies and good practice, with a central target of doubling the amount of cycling by 2002, and doubling that again by 2012.
The aims of the strategy link in with the Government's wider objectives of air quality improvement, sustainable development, transport efficiency and personal and public health. We need to recognise the bicycle as a serious transport option for going to work, to the shops, to the bus or train station, or to school. That means focusing on infrastructure as well as attitudes.

Mr. Chope: On which of the occasions that the Minister has just described does she use her bicycle?

Ms Jackson: I regret that my ability to use my bicycle to go to the shops has been somewhat precluded. Given the pressure of work, my ability to go to the shops is almost nil.
A national cycling forum has been established. It is responsible for ensuring that national and local policy and provision deliver increases in cycling, in line with the identified NCS outputs. The forum also co-ordinates the contributions of a number of working groups. Seven such groups have been established to look at a range of subjects.
One of those groups is exploring ways to maximise the opportunities for combining cycling with public transport. That is a major issue that involves not just bicycle carriage on other vehicles, but the provision of physical facilities at stations, bus stops and major interchanges, and of information about what is available to those planning multimodal journeys.
We are looking to train and station operators to play a major role in developing a cycle-friendly railway system. That will be achieved only if operators deliver what cyclists want—facilities for cycle carriage, convenient and secure facilities at stations, and comprehensive information. The voluntary code of practice, "Providing for Cyclists", launched earlier this year, offers helpful guidance to operators. The code was developed by the cyclists public affairs group, the Cyclists Touring Club

and Sustrans—to whose valuable and inspirational work my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) paid tribute.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South mentioned earlier, I was invited to make the first cycle mark award earlier this year to Anglia Railways for its "Bikes on Trains" initiative, developed in partnership—again I use that word partnership—with cycle user groups, the community, local authorities and the Government. Chiltern Railways has installed secure cycle racks at its stations. Great Western Trains has increased capacity and reduced its charge for reserving cycle carriage from £3 to £1. Thames Trains is providing flexible space for carrying bicycles on its trains. Those companies have pointed the way and we expect others to follow.
Making the railways more cycle-friendly is not the responsibility of just the train and station operators. On 6 November, we issued new objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director, placing a new duty on him to ensure that, as far as possible, the railway provides suitable facilities for cyclists. If a franchisee plans to order new rolling stock, the franchising director is now required to discuss with the franchise operator the provision of suitable space for accommodating bicycles on the trains. The franchising director is also required to encourage operators to provide suitable facilities for cyclists at the stations that they manage.
Hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the key issue of safety. We have announced our intention to set a new road safety target for the years beyond the turn of the century. The perception that promoting more cycling and reducing road casualties are not compatible must be challenged. One of the forum's working groups aims to ensure that the national cycling strategy can work in harmony with the development of the road safety strategy. Traffic management and related highway engineering offer enormous potential to make cycling conditions safer and more attractive to use. Networks of bus and cycle lanes, advanced stop lines for cyclists at traffic signals and one-way streets with contraflow are just some examples of possible measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest highlighted the need for planning to take the needs of cyclists into account when creating new buildings and workplace environments.
Cycle security is a perennial concern for cyclists. No matter what measures are put in place to encourage people to use their bike, the chances of their doing so are diminished if they do not have a reasonable expectation of finding it, with all its pieces in working order, where they left it.
A working group has been exploring the potential for developing a graded set of security standards for locking devices and is also keeping in touch with Southampton city council's review of existing guidance on the design, manufacture, planning and siting of cycle parking equipment.
Local authorities are the primary agents for delivering physical improvements for cyclists. My Department is developing guidance to help authorities to review the cycle-friendliness of their existing networks and proposals for new road infrastructure.
The strategy invites local authorities to contribute towards its headline target by putting together their own local cycling strategies. Some authorities may find it relatively easy to achieve—or exceed—a doubling of


cycle use. Others will find it more realistic to adopt a more modest target. That is why the strategy does not prescribe local targets, but encourages authorities to determine for themselves what is appropriate and achievable.
Public transport operators, bus and train station managers and employers can also be more proactive by providing secure cycle parks and shower facilities at work and by improving cycle access, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out. My Department offers interest-free loans to staff to purchase bicycles. There are excellent facilities available at Eland house and Great Minster house for staff who cycle to work. We have issued a green transport guide to all Departments. All Departments work together on a green Cabinet Sub-Committee to put the environment at the heart of all our policies. Transport has a major impact on our ability to achieve our aims for a sustainable economy and an acceptable and improving environment.
Putting in place practical and physical improvements will help to provide some tangible evidence of better provision for cyclists. There is a wealth of good practice. Information on successful initiatives, new approaches and innovations needs to be spread widely. There is much value in sharing knowledge and experience. The forum's best practice group has taken on the challenge and will be looking at topics such as cycling and town centres and cycling and health. Its task is to generate and disseminate guidance covering the principles of the national cycling strategy and relevant best practice examples.
Recent experience in cycle challenge and elsewhere has demonstrated the importance of establishing strong partnerships for action. I have asked my officials to analyse the outcomes of cycle challenge and ensure that the results are disseminated widely. Public transport operators were involved in a number of cycle challenge schemes. They include Greater Manchester passenger transport executive's drive to improve cycle parking at Metrolink stations and an initiative by Transport Management Services in conjunction with Stagecoach Cumberland to enable buses to carry bicycles on rural routes.
Examples from the health sector include a partnership between Southampton city council and Southampton University Hospital NHS trust to improve cycle parking on the hospital site and to reduce the number of cars coming on site. Stockport health authority received cycle challenge funds to operate a cycle leasing scheme to staff willing to give up their cars.
Employers, too, took part in cycle challenge. Dover council worked with Pfizer UK to improve cycle facilities for staff on the site, to fund cycle facilities in the town of Sandwich, and to improve access and local routes for cyclists. BNR Europe established cycle facilities and improved access to its site at Harlow in Essex.
Many voluntary groups either received cycle challenge funds or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move on.

Major Milos Stankovic

Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on an important case. I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, to allow others to speak. It is a debate about procedure and about a serving Army major who has been arrested under the Official Secrets Act 1911. It is not a debate about substance, as the major has not been charged. I do not know what any charges will be, or what they can be, because, during the relevant period, he was serving with the United Nations force in Bosnia—a force which, by definition, has neither secrets nor enemies—and, therefore, he could not be accused of passing a secret to an enemy.
Major Milos Stankovic is a serving officer with the Parachute Regiment. He is British, he has a British passport and he is a loyal British subject. His father was a Serb who fought with the Chetniks in the second world war and barely escaped with his life. He came to Britain with nothing, built a new life and started a family. In due course, his son Milos wanted to become a Regular Army officer and had the distinction of being selected by the Parachute Regiment. He served as a platoon commander and a captain with the UN force in Kuwait.
In October 1992, the British Army was deployed for the first time on a large scale in Bosnia and was looking for Serb speakers. It had only two in its ranks—both were the sons of Serbian fathers, and Milos Stankovic was one of them. He was assigned for four tours of duty—two years in Bosnia. He served longer there in hazardous conditions than any other British soldier. He acted as an interpreter, interpreting not only the language but the people, and as an adviser to Colonel Bob Stewart of the Cheshire Regiment, to General Smith and to General Rose. His job was to deal with the Serbs—the most difficult of the three ethnic groups—and he did so. His job was to win their trust, and he did so. His job was to get to know them, and he did so.
In the Bihac crisis of late November and early December 1994, Milos Stankovic was personally responsible for freeing 50 Canadian UN hostages held by the Serbs and unblocking convoys and the airport. He did that alone and with great distinction. He crossed front lines in a soft vehicle under fire. He is a man of great courage.
In May 1993, Major Stankovic saved the life of a Muslim woman wounded by Croatian sniper fire in the town of Vitez. He scooped her up and took her to hospital and saved her life. He was awarded the MBE. He received his medal from the Queen at Buckingham palace.
Beyond the line of duty, Major Stankovic took part in humanitarian endeavours. He was responsible for helping many people. I shall not specify exactly what he did, although if charges are laid against him I may have to do so because they bear upon his courage and his character. However, I shall read an extract of a letter that he received from a Muslim woman whom he had helped and who had a Serb husband:
We really must consider you our friend since what you have done for us is a huge thing. Such people who are prepared to help others risking their own lives are people who really must be considered friends. Therefore, one more huge thankyou for what you have done—you and that great humanitarian, General Rose.


In spring 1995, Milos Stankovic was returned to normal soldiering. He served with distinction as a company commander with the first battalion of the Parachute Regiment in Aldershot and he was eventually selected to participate in the joint services task force at Bracknell. It was there on 16 October this year that the Ministry of Defence police came to get him. They arrested him, but they did not charge him. They took him to Guildford police station where he was locked in a cell. They told him that, because of the gravity of the case, he was not allowed to make a single telephone call. After two hours in the cell, the Guildford police quite properly countermanded that decision and allowed him to make a telephone call. Eight hours later, the arresting officers returned with a questionnaire. If their instructions had been obeyed, he would have had no advice in helping him with his replies.
During those eight hours, the police had been searching Milos Stankovic's house. They took away six boxes of documents, papers and mementoes—the kind of thing that people gather in war zones. They did not give him an itemised inventory, so he does not know exactly what they have. Therefore, it is difficult for him to prepare any defence. They took something from a shrine that he kept to the memory of his father who had died 18 months earlier. It may seem unusual for a serving British officer to have a shrine in his house, but there is nothing seditious or suspicious about it. They took his medals from his mess kit—the minature medals. They were the GSM for service in Northern Ireland, the UNIKOM medal for service in Kuwait, the Bosnia medal that he won four times over, and the MBE.
Last week, the police sent Major Stankovic a letter saying that he would have to be rebailed not, as originally agreed, on 11 December, but on 11 March. Apparently, there will now be a five-month fishing expedition. What was most upsetting was that the letter was addressed to Mr. Stankovic—there was no rank and no medal. It may seem a trifling discourtesy to someone who has not worn the Queen's uniform, but to someone in Major Stankovic's position it is a clear indication that he has already been judged guilty.
Major Stankovic has the same right as any serving soldier, charged with or under suspicion of having committed a grave offence, to have a senior soldier as his adviser, godfather or prisoner's friend. That courtesy has not been extended to him. He has been told to talk to no soldier, and any soldier who talks to him has to report it. He is left twisting in the wind.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for having given me notice that he intended to raise the subject. I represent Aldershot, the home of the Parachute Regiment. The hon. Gentleman is explaining that the major has not been allowed to talk to anyone serving in the Army. The Parachute Regiment has been adroit in representing the interests of some of its past members who have been in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether former members of the Parachute Regiment have been able to assist him or the major, and are they supporting him?

Mr. Bell: I believe that Major Stankovic has wide support within the regiment and, indeed, within the Army. A retired member of the regiment would be ideal. In some

ways, General Sir Michael Rose would be ideal, but he cannot be involved because he may have to give evidence. The same applies to General Sir Rupert Smith who is the colonel-commandant of the regiment. The gap has not been filled and Major Stankovic still has no one to help him. The House should know that.
I had hoped that the Minister might be here, because I have some points to put to him. I wonder whether anyone else would like to intervene while I wait for the Minister.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Major Stankovic is a constituent of mine living in Farnham. I acknowledge the efforts of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) in finding an opportunity to raise his case in the House. Those who have already heard some of the background to the case will be deeply concerned. Clearly, Major Stankovic is an officer who has seen dangerous duty and shown courage in some of the most difficult circumstances.
The hon. Member for Tatton, on the basis of his specialist knowledge, has further information that the House and the Minister will no doubt wish to consider. As we learn more about the matter it seems that there are two elements, in particular, that the Minister will want to consider.
First, there is the question whether there is any truth in the allegations against my constituent. I am certainly in no position to provide any comment on that matter. If there is any truth in the allegations, and if they are substantial, one must ask the Secretary of State for Defence to hasten the inquiry and afford my constituent natural justice by allowing the evidence to come forward. Charges should be brought, or the investigation should be dropped and Major Stankovic publicly exonerated.
The present state of affairs, in which ignorance is prolonged by delay, is not fair. It is also enormously damaging to Major Stankovic and his family. Whatever the state of any allegations, there seems to have been great difficulty and lack of care and support in the way in which he has been treated.
There appears to be a conspiracy to hold my constituent completely incommunicado and to deprive him of essential evidence for his defence. There has been a choice not to follow the normal Army system of appointing an officer to advise him after his arrest, and he has been left with no information about whether charges are to be made.
Underlying that, there is also the possibility of personal danger arising from public allegations of partisanship in a vicious situation. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I add my concerns to those raised by the hon. Member for Tatton. Now that the Minister is here, I believe that the hon. Member may wish to address the House again.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). She mentioned Major Stankovic's family, and this is a time of great anxiety for him and of distress for his 75-year-old mother. May I say how grateful I am to see the Minister here, and how much I appreciate what he does? I believe that the armed forces are lucky to have him. That is genuine; I regard him as a friend.
The case that I have been laying out is that of a serving major who I, like other people both in and out of uniform, feel has been denied due process. That applies especially to the fact that he was not allowed to make a telephone call after being arrested and that his medals and documents were taken. He has been left to twist in the wind.
I know that the Minister's powers in the matter are limited, but there are some things that he can do. I urge him to ensure that Major Stankovic's rights are respected and protected, and that his documents, including his driving licence, are returned to him, having been photocopied if necessary. I urge the Minister also to ensure that Major Stankovic's medals are returned, with an apology, and that the case is brought to an expeditious conclusion. I also urge him to wonder whether the fraud squad of the Ministry of Defence police is the right agency to investigate a matter of such complexity.
I finish with a question. What kind of a people are we, and what kind of a signal does it send, if we reward our heroes by arresting them? Heroes are ordinary people who do extraordinary things. Major Milos Stankovic is such a man.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for my late arrival for the debate. It was unavoidable. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know that I travelled here by car with Ambassador Butler of UNSCOM—the United Nations Special Commission—to try to fit in my arrival with the time of the debate.
As a preliminary, may I tell the hon. Member that the whole House admires the way in which he worked, risked his life and showed such courage in reporting the war in Bosnia? He showed great personal courage in some dangerous situations and reported what he saw with passion and with compassion, but always with integrity and objectivity, too. Whenever he raises any matter in the House, we listen to him with great respect. In my view, the hon. Gentleman displayed deep compassion for all sides of the dispute in Bosnia and for all the peoples of that troubled land, whether Bosniac, Croat or Serb.
However, today it is not the war in Bosnia or the prospects for peace that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to raise. He knows that, because of the position that I hold, I rise to respond to him under restrictions and restraints of which he is well aware. I am restricted and restrained in how I can respond to the points that he has made—although I can say that the whole House will have heard what he said. I shall seek to respond to those points that do not fall properly within the process of judicial inquiry and operations.
The hon. Gentleman has made a judgment in deciding to raise the matter today. I am sure that he did so after careful thought, and with the conscientiousness that he would normally apply to such questions. He will know that in speaking about the case of Major Stankovic he will inevitably have given that case publicity. He will also know that it has already featured in detail in an article in the Daily Mail on Monday. Some of the points that he had previously made in private and has made again today were also expressed in that article.
Therefore, inevitably, publicity will surround the case. The hon. Gentleman will have made a judgment about that before embarking on his course of action. I have no means of knowing either what informed that judgment, or Major Stankovic's view of the publicity that his case will now receive, and whether he may believe that it will be helpful or otherwise to his own position.
For my part, in case there is any doubt on the subject, I wish to place on the record the fact that my Department has sought no publicity whatever for the case. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we in the Ministry of Defence have been scrupulous in doing everything in our power to avoid publicity, which could cause unnecessary distress to Major Stankovic, and could risk prejudicing subsequent proceedings, or his defence if—I repeat "if"—he were to be charged.
Indeed, hitherto my Department has not even acknowledged the name of Major Stankovic or given it to the press. Whatever speculation may have arisen in that regard, it did not arise in any authorised fashion or, I hope, from any element in my Department.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: From the public prints, are not we entitled to ask whether the role of the military police will be seriously looked at, as that certainly is within the purview of the Minister's Department?

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is entitled to ask anything he likes, but I am more constrained in how I can reply. If he asks whether, in due course, consideration will be given to the MOD police, that subject—particularly during the strategic defence review—could be examined. If he is implying that I should somehow intervene in the investigation, that course is not open to me, and it would be unwise. That is precisely why I am being as constrained as I am in my remarks.
I would not wish to take any action or make any comment that might in any way influence an investigation that is under way or which ultimately could be perceived in any way to have affected the investigation or even the case for the defence, if charges were brought against Major Stankovic.

Mr. Martin Bell: As time is running out, will the Minister find it in himself to address two points: the protection of the rights of Major Stankovic, and the provision of a serving or ex-serving military officer to help and advise him?

Dr. Reid: I will address those points if the hon. Gentleman bears with me. He has relayed his views to me personally and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written to the chief constable of the MOD police about the case, as was right and proper, and he has met MOD police officers. He will be able to confirm that my right hon. Friend and I told him that, while we could listen, we could make no comment on the merits of the case or the conduct of the MOD police investigation, for reasons that will be obvious. Ministers do not answer for the operational activities of police forces. The chief constable of the MOD police is responsible for the conduct of the investigation by his force and, in his constabulary capacity, he is independent of the Government under law.
Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I outlined the processes involved. When the MOD police complete an investigation, they report to the Crown Prosecution


Service, and careful consideration is given to the question of prosecution. If, having applied the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, the CPS concludes that proceedings are appropriate, it will make any necessary applications to the Attorney-General for his comments. If the decision is not to prosecute Major Stankovic, standard procedures will be followed by the MOD, including consideration of whether there might be evidence of a military offence having been committed.
It would be understandable if the hon. Member for Tatton or Major Stankovic felt concerned that the process could take some time. I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that once the MOD police have completed their investigation—and a decision has been taken on whether Major Stankovic should be prosecuted—and when the matter comes within the realm of my responsibility, my Department will carry out our procedures with fairness and with all possible speed.
I cannot make any prediction of the outcome, any more than I can comment on the merits of the case. The hon. Member understands all that, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have explained it to him carefully. In any case, he is well aware of the procedures. However, I thought it right to set them out in some detail in case they were not entirely familiar to some hon. Members or to members of the public who may read our reports. I trust that the House will understand why I cannot reply to many of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman in his speech.
I wish to emphasise that if Major Stankovic is charged with any offence, he will have a full opportunity and plenty of time to prepare his defence. He may wish to refer to some of the matters to which the hon. Member referred. The House will understand how prejudicial it would be to any subsequent procedures, and to Major Stankovic's interests, if I were to say anything at all about the matters today. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give serious thought to those considerations.
One point to which I can refer, because it falls within my responsibilities, is the Army's support for Major Stankovic, which the hon. Gentleman believes is inadequate. I can confirm that Major Stankovic is receiving Army support, as I made inquiries about this matter—and this matter alone—as late as yesterday. He is entitled to the assistance of what is called a soldier's friend. His commanding officer has advised him on that entitlement, and a soldier's friend has been appointed. An individual may choose any Army officer who is not in the chain of command or a potential witness. I am glad that I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I also assure the hon. Gentleman that if charges are not brought, the matter will be dealt with, so far as our procedures are concerned, in an expeditious and fair

manner. Other than that, there is very little that I can say that would not be open to misinterpretation as interference in the due process of the investigation.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I understand the difficulties that the Minister faces in terms of the legalities. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised some procedural matters—for example, the failure to provide an inventory of the personal effects taken from Major Stankovic's home—which the Minister could properly deal with. Any of us who had had items removed from our home would feel, at the very least, that we should have a proper inventory of all that was taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to Major Stankovic's medals, and perhaps the Minister might also be able to address that point. Will he ensure that the MOD police provide an inventory of all items taken from the major's home?

Dr. Reid: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will know that the fine distinction that he is able to draw between interfering with the process of an investigation and alleging any irregularities in the procedures of the investigation is one that might not be apparent to every objective observer. On these occasions, it is as well to err on the side of caution so that there is not seen to be any ministerial interference in an independent investigation.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will know that the proceedings of the House will be watched, listened to and read by a number of people, including the chief constable of the MOD police who will, by this afternoon or tomorrow morning, be well aware of the questions that have been asked. He will be aware also, no doubt, that when the procedure is finished, hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tatton may wish to return to those questions. Even without my directly intervening in any way, the casual observer might conclude that the matters would be attended to.
I shall ask whether such an important matter as this debate, which is relevant to general police matters, can be brought to the attention of the chief constable of the MOD police. That may suffice to meet the hon. Gentleman's point without direct intervention.

Mr. Dalyell: To pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I would never dream of asking my hon. Friend the Minister to interfere in an investigation; the issue that I raised was the behaviour of the military police, as described in the public prints, which appeared not to be acceptable to a possibly distinguished and brave man.

Dr. Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is a fine philosophical point to draw a distinction between the behaviour of the police investigating—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Michael J. Martin): Order. It is time for the next debate.

Digital Television (North-West Norfolk)

1 pm

Dr. George Turner: I wonder whether I am the only Member of Parliament who, when sitting down to watch television on the odd occasion at the weekend, consults the weather forecast before looking at the television guide. The problem of poor television reception experienced in my part of rural Norfolk is shared by many other sparsely populated areas, but it is uniquely annoying in north-west Norfolk because, although over the years there have been technical attempts under the analogue transmission system to improve reception, they seem to have failed abysmally for many thousands of my constituents.
Mrs. Ellen Ward from King's Lynn says:
We only have Yorkshire TV despite having two aerials. The chap who came to fix our second one tried in vain to get Anglia for us. The picture is awful and we have not been able to watch it. I am disabled through illness and although I watch very little TV I do especially love news items. I think most of this area gets pretty peeved off about the coverage we get.
Not only do we have problems with the weather, because reception is marginal from the transmitters designed to serve East Anglia, but, as in Wales, where I understand that 30 per cent. of people get better coverage from English than from Welsh transmitters, we get better reception from transmitters serving Yorkshire and northern England than from those meant to transmit to the people of East Anglia.
Yorkshire Television is transmitted from Belmont and has plenty of news about what is going on in northern England in its regional news programmes. To be blunt, people in Norfolk are more interested in the Canaries and the King's Lynn football team than in the affairs of Barnsley football club. One of my constituents, in a letter to the press, said:
I have spent hundreds of pounds on aerials and boosters trying to obtain Anglia TV and BBC East so my family and I can see the local news for our area. But to no avail, we still have to look at Yorkshire TV (wonderful picture, super picture and sound) and hear about what is happening in Leeds and Bradford…that is unless the atmospherics are feeling benevolent and allow us through the snow to get a glimpse of something nearer home, and hear how Norwich City or King's Lynn got on at football, instead of Barnsley and Huddersfield!
On a more serious note, a constituent tells me:
We are just a couple of miles from the coast, with the Ouse and Nene nearby. I am fearful that in not having our own local news, storm and flood warnings might be missed, while we were watching the news from the North!
One of the best quotations, in the technical environment in which we live, came from a constituent who said:
It does seem quite abysmal that men can travel to the Moon and back yet, even with a booster fitted to the aerial you are unable to get reception to my sitting room!
The problem has been long standing. As an electronic engineer, I at least can understand what the engineers tell me. Since I have been a Member of Parliament—and indeed when I was seeking election—they have told me woefully about the technical problems in transmitting analogue television. I know, because the King's Lynn Citizen mounted a strong campaign, that at least 5,000 people in my constituency have been troubled enough to write and say so.
I know from the campaigning of some borough councillors, especially Charles Ward and Marcus Liddington, who are bringing the issue to the borough council today, that the problem is large; and the solution, with analogue television, could be expensive and, given that we as a nation have stopped building relay transmission for analogue television, would probably not be achievable in the present regime.
As an electronic engineer, I am also extremely well aware that there is a solution. I am in the fortunate position, I hope, not of merely carping to the Minister but of being confident that the technical problems of the past, so well expressed by my constituents, can be solved by modern technology. I refer in particular to the revolution in communications represented by digital transmission, which is the distinctive way of transmitting information much more efficiently on the same radio waves.
The House will not want a technical lecture on the subject, but let me outline the two major advantages of digital television. First, some clever engineers have ensured that, by compressing data, the frequency spectrum, which is finite and governed by equations not even in the control of the Minister, can be more effectively used. For every television station that we can transmit by analogue transmission, using the same range of frequencies, we can transmit at least four, and probably more next year and the year after, digitally.
We shall have an enormous number of options in terms of picture quality, added services, interactive television and help for the handicapped. Fifty or so frequencies are available but, with analogue transmission, only four or possibly five channels can be received nationally—and those with difficulty, as my constituents know—but without cabling, which will not happen quickly in rural areas, and without people having to subscribe to Sky, we shall, with digital transmission, be able, with the transmitters that are currently in use, to transmit 20 to 30 television channels to every home. That is a huge advantage in terms of the wealth of communications that we can deliver from every transmitter in the land, as we move from analogue to digital.
The second advantage is that digital television will be much less susceptible to interference than the analogue that it replaces. We are about to enter an interim period during which analogue television may well be interfered with by digital. That is a jolly good argument for speeding up the process by which we move to the digital domain with its much greater efficiency. Under digital, much lower signal levels will allow high-quality pictures to be received, which will be a godsend in the sparse rural environments and the difficult patches of Norfolk to which I have referred. As an engineer, I have a clear understanding that there are no technical objections to the solution, which should be explored and implemented.
As a nation, we should have a social requirement that the key channels—bluntly, it is BBC1 and channel 3 that have the proper regional variations—should be, as of right, universally received in the United Kingdom. To do that, all we need to do is to ensure that transmitters that are now technically capable of transmitting only four channels and which will, as we move forward, be able to transmit 20 or 30, include within their expansion the channels that the people who receive broadcasts from that transmitter want to watch. Greater priority should be given to ensuring that people get the television reception that they want before they are plagued with requests to


pay for the extra facilities, many of which they will not want, that the new technology opens up. People will not thank the Government if, in several years, they can receive 20 channels, but they still cannot receive the key local coverage and the channels that they most want to receive.
I am particularly grateful to the Library for trying to bring me up to speed on the legal side of the issue. Emma Downing has served me especially well in guiding me through the labyrinth of legislation. I shall summarise what I have gleaned from that. It seems to me that there is nothing in the legislation which stops us achieving what I have suggested, but there is possibly not too much that encourages it. The responsibility to ensure universal coverage, or the nearest to it that we can obtain, seems to be divided between the Minister, the Independent Television Commission and the BBC.
I have had mixed responses from the BBC. When complaints were made some time ago, its local spokesman said that the television licence was like a fishing licence. It enabled people to receive television, but it did not guarantee that they could do so. That was not an acceptable response to my constituents, given the extra facility that the BBC is given in legislation to transmit extra information around the country. I must say that I received a much friendlier hearing from the chairman of the governors last week. He has at least offered some meetings, so that I can discuss with BBC technical advisers a more satisfactory route forward.
Neither has the ITC held out any prospect of an easy solution. My predecessor was told that it did not see the prospect of a solution with the move to digital television. Bluntly, that is not acceptable. Today I have my opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that a fresh look is taken at the matter. It seems to me that a fresh look is appropriate for a new Government.
I and the many other hon. Members who represent sparsely populated rural areas do not expect immediate solutions, but given the wealth that the technical advances have given us in terms of our ability to communicate better, I hope that we can hold out a prospect today that we shall not wait for ever—mañana, mañana—for our problems to be solved. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept the validity of my complaints on behalf of my constituents, but will also acknowledge that many others in other rural parts of the country could argue similarly.
I have already mentioned that one third of the people in Wales receive English television more clearly than Welsh. They, too, could be helped by my proposed solution. In taking a fresh look at the problem, does the Minister accept that, in the array of opportunities made available by the move to digital broadcasting, there is a possibility of solving the problem that I have emphasised today at least for the vast majority of my constituents, and possibly for many others in this interim period of mixed analogue and digital broadcasting?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to ensure that those responsible—it is a divided responsibility, and that is one of the problems—face up to the issues that I have raised and give proper priority to universal reception of core television channels? The new Government have made much of the need for communities to act, and for community solutions to problems, whether crime or problems of regional

development. We have an obligation to ensure that those communities are given the support of community television, at least in the regional variations that the main broadcasters provide. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use not only his power under the Broadcasting Act 1996 but, probably more important, his influence.
I suspect that technology will ensure that we legislate yet again on broadcasting during the lifetime of this Parliament. The fact that telephone, computer and broadcasting communications are merging technologies will necessitate that. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Minister would tell those who had vested interests to protect and wanted to see the licence fee retained that constituents such as mine were not prepared to pay the licence fee while the BBC viewed it as an opportunity to receive television signals, but did not put enough effort into making sure that its services could be watched.
I have a more personal plea. As a former lecturer in digital electronics, I am confident that the fastest possible track should be given to the revolution that engineering has made possible and which politicians now need to ensure that we exploit.

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing an Adjournment debate on the important issue of television reception in his constituency, on which he and I have recently corresponded. As he says, the issue is of interest to a wider range of people, because it affects many rural areas in different ways.
I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will appreciate his assiduous pursuit of their interests, including his detailed discussions with the engineering division of the ITC, which is responsible for terrestrial transmission arrangements in my hon. Friend's part of the country. His advocacy, as he modestly did not stress, is given extra weight by his expert knowledge of the technicalities of transmission. He is a former university lecturer in electronic engineering. I suspect that he speaks with greater knowledge than any other Member of Parliament on a difficult and abstruse issue. The people of north-west Norfolk could not have a better champion than my hon. Friend, with his determination, his success in obtaining this debate and his almost unique expertise.
Many of my hon. Friend's constituents are unable to receive their preferred regional television service. He cited Mrs. Ward of King's Lynn. She and others must be baffled that, at a moment of huge technical advance, they cannot receive their preferred transmission. It is frustrating for them to pay a licence fee to receive a service which is not the one that they want.
I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents and, indeed, with my hon. Friend himself, who is one of his own constituents who does not receive the service he wants. However, as he is only too well aware, the problems that we are dealing with are, first, the properties of radio transmission and, secondly, the topography of East Anglia. I know that, with his considerable technical knowledge, my hon. Friend is familiar with those issues; but it might be helpful if I summarise, for the benefit of those less expert in these matters, some of the difficulties that are encountered.
The radiomagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and we must operate within the constraints of what is available. We have available for broadcasting 46 frequency channels to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and, as my hon. Friend is aware, broadcast transmissions from one site can readily interfere with and distort transmissions on a similar frequency from a neighbouring site. In addition to meeting the spectrum demands within the UK, we must have regard to the impact of our plans on our continental neighbours, given that broadcast signals do not respect national boundaries and travel a long distance, especially over water.
Reconciling those constraints and problems can be hard and can lead to limits on the coverage area of transmissions within the UK. In some circumstances, it might simply not be possible to use certain frequency channels because of the potential to interfere with existing services in other nations. It follows that there are certain areas within the UK where available spectrum for broadcasting is a genuinely scarce commodity. Coastal regions such as my hon. Friend's area are especially prone to such limitations and there is undoubtedly a genuine difficulty, not easily resolved, in north-west Norfolk.
The television services of BBC East and the Anglia Television ITV franchise are, as my hon. Friend knows, transmitted from three transmitters—Tacolnestone, Sandy Heath and Sudbury—and are extended by associated relay stations. I gather that the ITC's engineers have made every effort to extend coverage and to remedy anomalies in the region, for example, by setting up three relay stations at Burnham, King's Lynn and Wells-next-the-Sea. Because of the frequency limitations that I have already outlined, those relays are limited to two channels: Anglia Television and BBC1. There are four other relays at Creake, Little Walsingham, West Runton and Overstrand.
I recognise, as does the ITC, that there are areas in my hon. Friend's constituency that do not receive a satisfactory Anglia Television service in particular. I gather that about 30,000 people, including my hon. Friend, have to rely on the Belmont main transmitter in Lincolnshire as the source of their programmes, and that Belmont delivers the Yorkshire Television ITV service and BBC North. Clearly, much of their programming is unlikely to be of major interest to most people living in north-west Norfolk, although I understand that some of Yorkshire Television's programming broadcast from Belmont reflects East Anglian issues to a certain extent. Nevertheless, I understand that the consequences can be serious, especially in a coastal region.

Dr. George Turner: I should like to state publicly that today I approached Yorkshire Television and BBC North and asked them, exceptionally, to consider covering this debate, so that my constituents can see that I am speaking up for them. Interestingly, the BBC told me to get lost, but Yorkshire Television did at least say that it would give such coverage fair consideration as part of the news. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that having the odd item on Yorkshire Television is only a patch and can never be an acceptable solution to the problem. Until we

get proper broadcasting from the Belmont transmitter into Norfolk, presumably in the digital domain, the problem will not be solved.

Mr. Fisher: I am concerned that serious broadcasters did not take my hon. Friend's request more to heart, given that public service broadcasters have a responsibility to cover events in the House. He might have noticed that there is another Adjournment debate tomorrow, on the broadcasting companies' responsibilities to cover debates in this Chamber, which might be of some interest to him.
Although I appreciate that there is no direct comfort for my hon. Friend's constituents, north-west Norfolk has received a considerable degree of special attention—perhaps more attention than most of the rest of the country—from the ITC in an attempt to address the regional anomalies, as illustrated by the number of additional relays provided. However, I accept that existing analogue transmissions can never fully solve the problem. My hon. Friend, in his excellent contribution, envisaged the solution as being digital, and that does indeed offer greater potential than analogue. However, it must be recognised that, even with digital, frequency availability will remain a constraining factor, at least during the early years before the analogue transmission network is switched off and not least because, in most locations, people will receive their digital transmissions from the same main transmitter source as their analogue transmissions.
My hon. Friend will know that digital transmissions differ from analogue in that there is no gradual decline in the quality of reception; consequently, there are no "mush" areas between different transmitters and coverage may therefore be more easily defined. People will either receive a signal of sufficient strength to obtain a service, or they will not. That will ease some planning difficulties and further increase the efficient use of the 46 frequency channels available. However, I would not want to mislead either my hon. Friend or the House by offering a certain prospect that digital will offer his constituents a quick or necessarily total solution to their reception problems. In the longer term, with the closure of analogue, digital might offer a solution to reception problems in north-west Norfolk, but until further spectrum planning has been undertaken, that solution cannot be certain—at least, not as certain as my hon. Friend believes.
Digital terrestrial television is a new technology and we are still at an early stage in its development. At present, the transmission plans of only the first 81 transmitters are being devised. Those are the main transmitters and some of the larger relays, which together will deliver digital services to more than 90 per cent. of the UK population for multiplexes carrying existing terrestrial services. Those 81 transmitters contrast with about 1,200 transmitters required to achieve analogue coverage for 99.4 per cent. of our population. Further relays may be brought into the digital plan, but the spectrum planning for them cannot commence until the plans for the first 81 are completed.
I am not in a position today to inform the House definitively whether digital terrestrial television will solve the problems that my hon. Friend described. He suggested that the increased capacity offered by digital would enable Yorkshire Television to broadcast from the Belmont transmitter both Yorkshire and Anglia regional variations. The Belmont transmitter is in the first stage of the digital


plan, and it will be operational on the launch of DTT services. However, the issue is not as simple as that, and we need to examine it more carefully. The ITC companies might consider that it would be sensible to use their digital capacity to deliver regional programming more accurately, and I assure my hon. Friend that I shall pass on his concerns and those of his constituents to both the Independent Television Association and Yorkshire Television. I am sorry to be unable to give my hon. Friend the categoric reassurance that he would like at this stage. Obviously, the extent of digital delivery of regional services will be an issue that the Government will have to consider when determining our strategy for switching over from analogue to digital terrestrial television.
I emphasise that there are no quick solutions, but I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the Government take these matters seriously. He has raised valid complaints and described valid problems on behalf of his constituents, and we need to consider them seriously as the potential of digital is realised. I look forward to continuing the dialogue, both through correspondence and in other ways, with my hon. Friend.

Town Centres

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am well aware that the future of our town centres and the impact upon them of edge-of-town supermarkets and out-of-town supermarkets have been well aired in the House in recent years. Indeed, the Business Improvement Districts Bill is being discussed in another place at the moment. Problems still exist. I shall be as brief as I can be so that the Minister has maximum time to respond.
Between 1990 and 1994, 8,000 small shops closed. Hon. Members all know how the Merry Hill shopping centre in the west midlands, now of notorious repute, has caused the death of several town centres in midlands, including that in my home area, so I know them well.
My constituency of Richmond Park has two fine shopping centres, Richmond and Kingston, and many groups of village shops and small shopping parades within it. Over the years, the two borough councils have struggled to maintain the life of their town centres. They have encouraged supermarket chains into those centres, albeit on restricted sites. By doing so, they have given shoppers the benefits of supermarket shopping.
Recently, two supermarket developments have been allowed, on appeal to the Department of the Environment, after considerable local opposition. An application for another supermarket on the famous Old Deer park in Richmond is imminent. All three are on the edge of Kingston and Richmond and will cause severe traffic congestion and have a major impact on two beautiful towns. Those towns are also threatened by the expansion of air-side and land-side shopping malls that are part of the terminal 5 development at Heathrow airport, which plans to provide huge shopping facilities for its customers. With the removal of duty free regulations next year, how long will it be before British Airways organises one-day shopping trips to Heathrow? That could affect town centres throughout the country, and not just local ones. Richmond in particular will suffer because it is a small centre where, as our motto says,
the countryside comes to town.
However much the Government fall back on planning guidelines—the planning policy guidance note 6 was introduced by the previous Government and was greatly welcomed—and claim that nothing has changed, discussions are taking place that will affect the future of our town centres. It is a mystery to me why that should happen, particularly in the case of the Manor road site in Richmond, which recently received planning permission on appeal. I am aware that the inspector makes that decision and not the Government, but I shall say no more than that it is a mystery to me.
Another aspect of the problem which concerns me has long-term implications because the sites being used for the supermarkets are brown-field ones—in two cases in my constituency they are the sites of old gas works. The local authority and the DOE have no power to command the total cleansing of those much polluted sites—they merely need to be decontaminated for the use to which they will be put. That is a less expensive option than that required if those sites were to be used for housing, and it is an option that British Gas welcomes. I have visited the British Gas laboratories at its invitation, but despite that and my repeated requests, it will not divulge any details


about the two local sites in my constituency that most concern me—at King's road in Kingston and Manor road in Richmond.
That means that pollution will be locked into those sites for future generations. The local authorities will have to accept that they can never be used for any other purpose. Town centres will therefore always be under siege for new sites, and housing, for which there is such a desperate need, will never be built because the cost to the developer of proper decontamination will be prohibitive.
I shall conclude by asking a few questions. Why does not the DOE insist on the total decontamination of those sites, which would enable them to be used for housing? Why do we continue to permit out-of-town and edge-of-town supermarkets when we know how much damage they can do to our town centres? Where will the elderly, disabled people and those without cars go to do their shopping when the small retailers on whom we depend have gone? Why are the Government continuing to encourage shopping by car, which increases pollution? Why cannot the supermarkets operate smaller stores such as Spar, Mace and Europa do? I must commend Tesco because its Metro developments reveal that it is showing signs of looking for smaller sites and smaller outlets for its goods. Why can we not encourage such marketing? When will the DOE commission proper research into the impact of retail developments on town centres? In March, the then Select Committee on the Environment produced an excellent report on that subject. Why cannot the Government act upon it?

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on initiating the debate. I understand why she has raised the subject, but I hope that she will equally appreciate that I cannot speak about any particular cases, such as those in her constituency, which are either sub judice or where an appeal might be lodged with the Secretary of State in the future. That is simply the product of the proper rules that guarantee that any such appeal that comes before the Secretary of State must be dealt with on a strictly impartial basis. I am, nevertheless, pleased that the hon. Lady has chosen this subject for debate because it gives me the opportunity to set out clearly the Government's policy.
The Government are committed to regenerating town centres and, unlike the previous Government who saw the writing on the wall much too late, we have always been the champion of town centres. The damage inflicted in the 1980s and early 1990s was caused by the permissive policies of the previous Government, ironically often aided by public money. The Metro centre on Tyneside, Meadowhall and Merry Hill, to which the hon. Lady referred, all received Government funds through enterprise zones, the derelict land grant, or by being in a development corporation area.
Such developments have had an inevitable impact on their surrounding areas, to which the hon. Lady has also referred, and now there are calls for public money to be spent to assist the regeneration of the areas damaged by those big developments. Obviously, that is not a logical and sensible way to proceed and it is not one that the Government will pursue.
The permissive policies of the previous Administration helped to bring about a major shift in retailing patterns. In 1979, just 5 per cent. of retail sales turnover was generated outside existing town centres. Today, that figure is estimated at more than 25 per cent. and it is likely to exceed 30 per cent. by 2000. That is the legacy that we have inherited. The permissions currently working through the system are largely those that were granted before we came into power. Therefore, we have no control over them. It is inevitable that there will be a further increase in permissions because of those already in the pipeline.
It was not until 1993, with the issuing of a revised PPG6, that the previous Government began to move towards the current policy. The change in policy was initially played down as a change in the balance between town centre and out-of-town development, but in fact it was the beginning of a sea change.
In its 1994 report on shopping centres, the Select Committee on the Environment endorsed the policy and recommended that it be strengthened. Its recommendations were broadly accepted by the previous Government, leading to a further revision of PPG6 in June 1996. The policy was further reviewed and endorsed by the Environment Committee, which reported in March this year.
In answer to the hon. Lady's final question, I can tell her that that report was one of the first matters to receive our attention after the general election. As she knows, we responded by the end of July, making clear our support for the policy endorsed by the Select Committee and our interest in a number of its specific proposals. There is no question of the Government doing anything other than endorsing the approach already recommended by the Select Committee—an approach committed to the regeneration of town centres and in particular, as I shall explain, to the rigorous application of the sequential test in relation to planning applications for developments of out-of-town centres.
Our response in July showed that the Government are firmly committed to PPG6 and it spelt out our key objectives for town centres: first, to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing city, town and district centres; secondly, to make them the focus for investment, particularly in retail, office, leisure and other appropriate developments; and thirdly, to provide easy access to a wide range of facilities and services by a choice of means of transport.
It is important to ensure that people have opportunities to reach shopping centres by good public transport, to avoid the problem of growing dependence on the car, to which the hon. Lady referred. Such investment is essential to the regeneration and enhancement of the attractiveness of our town and city centres.
That is not to say that town centres did not need to change and that some of the competition has not helped galvanise town centres to respond to the challenge. However, the challenge has been damaging. We are trying to mobilise public and private funds to combat the continuing, often slow, haemorrhaging of our town centres as the full, long-term effect of the new regional shopping centres comes through.
The full effects of those new centres have yet to be felt, as town centres within 50 miles adjust to the loss of trade and some stores close or contract. The effect of major new


centres, such as Bluewater in south-east London, Cribbs Causeway on the edge of Bristol, Trafford Park in the Manchester conurbation and even the more recent Mortlake Road development in Kew, have yet to come through in full. Those effects are likely to be felt in the next few years.
How do we expect the policy to operate? Local authorities have a major job ahead. Many will need to review their development plans. Up to now, many plans have not set out a clear strategy for town centres that would encourage shops, offices, leisure and even housing back into existing centres. In many cases, local authorities have been essentially locked into a reactive mode—trying to defend their town centres from out-of-town shopping developments, and often having few policies for the other key uses of existing town centres.
We want local authorities to adopt a much more positive and proactive approach to planning town centres. We want them to say where development will be encouraged, and to produce a clear strategy, as well as policies for all key town centre uses. Indeed, we want them to go further. We expect them to adopt a sequential approach to identifying and assessing sites in or on the edge of town centres for their suitability for town centre developments.
Let me explain what the sequential test involves. It means, first, identifying sites within centres. If a suitable site is not identified, edge-of-centre sites should be sought. Only if that fails should local authorities consider an out-of-centre site, which is well served or could be well served by public transport.
We expect local authorities to be realistic and to discuss the suitability of such sites with the private sector. We expect them to develop planning briefs for town centre sites ahead of revising the development plan, and we also expect them to take a much more positive approach to using their compulsory purchase powers to assist with land assembly, where that seems necessary. That will require local planning authorities to take a more positive approach than many have adopted in the past.
The sequential approach also applies to the way in which developers should approach the issue. Any proposal, whether for a new development or for expansion of an existing development, for out-of-town locations will need to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites in more central locations. If there are no such sites, before out-of-centre sites are considered, there will still be a question to be answered as to whether there is a need for such a development. The Government have made it clear that that approach would apply as much to leisure, office and other town centre uses as to retail developments.
The policy must apply to all phases of the planning process: the preparation of development plans, the handling of planning applications and the determination of appeals. We expect inspectors to apply the same criteria in determining planning appeals.
Some people believe that the Secretary of State should call in all major applications and recover all planning appeals for his own determination. The Government's general approach to call-ins is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities, save in exceptional cases where that is necessary. The Secretary of State is therefore very selective about calling in applications for his own determination, and will generally intervene only if matters of more than local importance are involved.
Each case must be considered on its individual merits. In recent years, the average number of appeals to the Secretary of State has been approximately 14,000 annually. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it would be impractical for the Secretary of State to determine such a large number of cases personally.
All appeals to the Secretary of State are handled in the first instance by the Planning Inspectorate executive agency. In well over 90 per cent. of cases, the appeal is determined by the inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State. A small number of appeals each year are recovered by the Secretary of State for his own decision. The decision to recover an appeal is taken by reference to published criteria contained in the Government's response to the Select Committee on the Environment in 1986—Cmnd 43.
In the case of supermarkets and large retail developments, the criteria specify that the Secretary of State will recover development proposals involving development of more than 100,000 sq ft. Those that the hon. Lady mentioned in her constituency were smaller than that and therefore did not meet the criteria, so they were properly determined by the inspector.
In addition to getting key commercial uses back into town centres, the Government are keen to get more people living there. We hope to achieve that by encouraging the development of more housing, on its own or as part of mixed-use development. That will help to bring back diversity and life to our town centres.
People are the key ingredient to revitalising town centres. We hope that, for some people, who do not want to live in a quiet suburban area, the town centre can offer an exciting and attractive environment to live in. Young people may be attracted by proximity to entertainment facilities and transport links, and older people may be happy to live in the centre, with easy access to shops and other facilities.
Often, a town centre's location may be extremely attractive, and we must do much more to encourage the imaginative use of sites and the re-use of existing buildings to provide housing opportunities in our town centres. That would not only meet housing needs, but help to bring life back into town centres, which too often go dead at night, when the shopkeepers leave and the businesses close, and where there is often a risk, because of the absence of people keeping watch over the area.
The hon. Lady rightly raised the question of contaminated land. The issue has exercised the Government considerably. A number of sites in urban areas are severely contaminated and require remediation work before they can be used. There are obvious questions of cost involved in the remediation of such sites. It is unreasonable to make developers clear up to a standard above that required for the purposes of the site. It would inhibit development if there were an artificially high remediation standard that bore no relation to the use proposed for the site. That creates a difficulty in terms of meeting the case advanced by the hon. Lady. However, there is no reason why sites could not be cleared up further after initial remediation to allow houses to be built on them, for example.

Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister agree that a future developer who wished to build houses on a site that had been decontaminated for only supermarket and leisure use


would be deterred by the cost of further decontamination? If the sites are decontaminated superficially only for the purposes for which they are intended now, those sites will be locked into that use for ever. No future developers will want to meet the cost of decontaminating the sites fully.

Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I refer her to my earlier comments about the importance of local authorities taking a more proactive role in determining appropriate uses for sites in development plans. If local authorities adopt that approach, there will be an appropriate level of response to the future needs of sites. If a site is not designated for housing purposes in a development plan, it is entirely understandable—nder the plan-led system that we operate—that developers who acquire that site in future, anticipating the level of costs associated with decontamination and remediation for non-housing purposes, will say that it is not possible for the site to meet the higher standards required for housing. That is why it is essential that there be the greatest clarity possible in the planning system. Authorities should determine as far as possible in advance what is an appropriate use for a site so that all parties involved are aware of the implications and the associated costs.

Dr. Tonge: The Minister must realise that, although local authorities have district plans, they are not written in stone. We are talking about district plans that may last for 10 or 15 years. Local authorities may set down the uses that they wish for particular sites, but I am thinking about 30 or 40 years hence. I do not see why any developer would want to develop a site if he must first spend millions of pounds on decontamination—which, in the two cases that I mentioned, should have been completed by British Gas before it vacated the sites.

Mr. Raynsford: Two issues arise from the hon. Lady's comments. First, we attach considerable importance to local authorities reviewing and updating their development plans regularly. Plans should not be allowed to remain in force for many years, long after they have ceased to be an accurate and up-to-date reflection of need. Regular updating of plans is essential. Secondly, there is no reason why changing patterns of use will not create new economic circumstances not envisaged previously. After all, we are talking about sites that, 20 or 30 years ago, were considered as being exclusively for industrial use. Planning policies at that time envisaged the maximum separation of residential development from such sites.
As industry has declined, it has become necessary to adopt a different approach and to see whether it is possible to put some such sites to other uses. As I have said, the Government are keen to ensure the re-use of brown-field sites that are no longer required for their former purposes and the re-use of existing premises that are no longer needed and could be put to more beneficial use. The housing use of former warehouses and office buildings is a case in point.
We must not assume that it is possible to lay out at a particular point a strategy that will govern the potential uses of sites for 30 or 40 years or more. Equally, it would be wrong to sterilise sites that may be used in the short

term by setting an artificially high standard of decontamination and remediation that would deter any development and leave that site blighted and sterilised. We must adopt a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to ensure that, wherever possible, sites are brought back into use. We should not put obstacles in the way of development that might be appropriate and might help to improve the environment.
Local authorities have a major role to play, and will need to involve all the stakeholders. For many town centres, that process is already well under way. Local authorities need to develop a consensus in consultation with property owners, businesses, the local community and others with a stake in the future of the centre. From this, a strategy and an action plan must be produced and a town centre management body must be set up to oversee its implementation. Nearly 200 town centres have got this far already, and more are developing all the time. We encourage that development through support of the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust. The hon. Lady's constituency has adopted that approach and a town centre manager has been appointed. That is a very positive step.
The Government keep those policies under review, and we shall be prepared to make further changes if problems arise.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry, but time is short and I must continue.
The hon. Lady will know from the answer that I gave on 5 December 1997, Official Report, columns 401–02, that we recently clarified the policy further to ensure that proposals for extensions to existing out-of-centre supermarkets are subject to the same tests as other additional retail developments in such locations. That is an important extension of the policy to ensure that there is no scope for subverting its purpose by extending an existing supermarket rather than building a new one. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady an idea of the Government's commitment to keep policies under constant review and to take steps where necessary to ensure that they are effective in defending town centres.
The hon. Lady asked some other questions that I have not yet answered fully—which is why I required more time in which to respond. First, she asked why we permitted out-of-town or edge-of-town centres to be developed at all. The answer is that, in appropriate circumstances where there is no suitable town centre site, an edge-of-centre development may help to enhance the vitality of the town centre—particularly when good communication links are provided. In certain limited circumstances where there is no suitable town centre or edge-of-centre site available, the shopping needs of a community may require the provision of an out-of-town shopping centre. However, I stress that we do not envisage taking up that option when there is an alternative site available in the town centre or on the edge of the centre. In any case, there must be good public transport links in order to avoid undue dependence on the motor car.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked why supermarkets cannot operate smaller units. That is a matter for the managers of those supermarkets. The hon. Lady correctly


identified a trend, which is to be encouraged, on the part of some supermarket firms to develop smaller town centre outlets. Such outlets have proved successful, and I hope that others will learn from that experience. We must ensure that there is a wide range of options and choice for the public, as well as action to revitalise town centres. We must encourage trends that are already producing benefits.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked where elderly people will shop if there are no facilities in town centres. In order to meet the needs of the elderly and others who do not have access to cars and who depend on public transport or must walk to the shops, we are emphatic that there must be shopping in town centres. That is why we are so committed to retaining the vitality of town centres and action to support them.
The policies in PPG6 fit well with our concerns to tackle social exclusion, to develop a more integrated transport strategy than this country has had before, and to regenerate our most deprived areas. We are concerned to see that those policies are implemented consistently across the country.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Reproductive and Sexual Health

Jacqui Smith: What initiatives she has taken to promote greater reproductive and sexual health in developing countries. [18421]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The White Paper on international development sets out the Government's commitment to contributing to international development targets. Among them is the goal of ensuring access to basic health care, including reproductive health services for all by 2015. We believe that all people have a right to be able to control their fertility and to raise healthy, educated children.

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for the commitment that she has outlined. Does she agree that one of the most important steps that the Department for International Development can take is to work with the poorest countries to improve sex and health education and information for young people so that they can make informed choices about their families? What can the Department do to facilitate that?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right: getting proper services to young people is crucial if they are to be able to control their future, to prevent disease and to have the number of children that they want. We are focusing on that priority, but we believe that access to reproductive health services should be part of basic health care systems for all. That is the way in which to achieve a universal service and to reach everyone; and that is our priority.

Debt Burden

Mr. Fraser: What is her Department's policy on reducing the debt burden of developing countries. [18422]

Clare Short: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer leads on debt policy but, as was set out in the recent development White Paper, my Department has a key interest in the rapid and flexible implementation of debt reduction measures that aim to secure debt sustainability for some of the world's poorest countries. We must try to mobilise international support for more rapid progress if we are to reach international poverty eradication targets.

Mr. Fraser: I am sure that the Secretary of State is more aware than most that Uganda has benefited from debt reduction assistance. Will she assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will call for a yes vote in Uganda's forthcoming referendum on whether to set up a democratic state, and that, if we do not see a yes vote, she will report back and tell us why?

Clare Short: That has nothing to do with debt relief, but it is true that Uganda will be one of the first countries

to qualify, which is important if it is to sustain the great progress that it has made. It is committed to having a referendum on what form of democracy it should have. My view is that democracy, pluralistic democracy, and the right for people to select the candidate that they want and to oust Governments are crucial. We should not try to foist on Africa our precise model because, in some countries, it has led to terrible division on old tribal lines. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will always work for the protection of democracy everywhere, but I will not suggest to Uganda that it should adopt our precise democratic model.

Dr. Tonge: Have the Government considered taking any measures to deal with the double standards that exist in multilateral and bilateral aid to countries that are in debt? I am thinking in particular of the difference between our attitude to Indonesia and Mozambique.

Clare Short: There is an enormous difference between our attitude to Indonesia and our attitude to Mozambique. Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world and has overcome a terrible civil war. The Mozambique Government are now co-operating with the side they fought in that war, when dreadful atrocities took place. That is a fantastic achievement for the people of Mozambique and for both Government and Opposition there. We believe that, against terrible odds, the Government in Mozambique are trying very hard to bring about development and to eradicate poverty. We want to help them in every way we can.
Indonesia is a middle-income country. As the hon. Lady knows, I have reviewed our aid and reduced parts of it to increase help to sustain forestry and to assist trade unions that are persecuted in Indonesia and non-governmental organisations in East Timor. That has not been easy to organise.
Our attitudes to the two countries are massively different because the needs and natures of their Governments are so different.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: What is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Zimbabwe's international debts in the light of proposals to nationalise several million hectares of farming land without compensation, with access to the courts apparently to be denied to those who are deprived of their property? Economists and agriculture experts have warned that it will result in the collapse of Zimbabwe's agriculture industry, which is the country's biggest single foreign currency earner and generates two thirds of its domestic economy.

Clare Short: The situation in Zimbabwe is indeed very worrying. We have made our attitude to the current land proposals very clear. I have personally written to the Land Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have said that it is true that land is distributed very unfairly in Zimbabwe and that we would be willing to back a properly organised system of land redistribution that gives some land to the poor and enables them to improve their livelihoods and reduces poverty in Zimbabwe, but we will not fund or support in any way a scheme that endangers food production and Zimbabwe's economic health. I hope that Zimbabwe's Government will pull back and go for a properly organised redistribution of benefits to people in Zimbabwe.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Flight: When the change in status of the Commonwealth Development Corporation to a public-private partnership will take place. [18423]

Clare Short: I am keen to mobilise new investment through the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the neediest countries in the world as soon as possible, but there are many steps to be gone through, not least to deal with the need for new legislation.

Mr. Flight: Are the Government willing to consider bringing private sector shareholders into the CDC, given that they would help to confer the benefits to which the right hon. Lady has referred? If so, what kind of shareholding might the Government wish to retain, and—potentially—what kind of outside parties would they want to bring in? I think that the House should know where the Government are going.

Clare Short: I am sure that the House should know where the Government are going. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the matter at the last Prime Minister's Question Time and, I believe, the one before that, so there are no secrets; clear statements have been made.
As the hon. Gentleman should know, I have reviewed the CDC's work. It is a very important instrument to secure investment for countries that are not attracting private flows. We want to increase those flows and to use the CDC as a bridge to draw in more. I have therefore looked at the CDC's structure. Because it is wholly Government-owned, it is not allowed to raise private finance because that would count as Government borrowing. I want it to be restructured in a way that will allow the retention of a substantial Government share while leaving the majority of the corporation in private ownership. That will enable us to raise additional flows of investment while leaving a golden share that will entrench the corporation as a development institution encouraging investment in the poorest countries.
Those are the proposals and they are being scrutinised. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is much detailed work to be done and after that we must introduce legislation; but I hope to do all that.

Multilateral Agreement on Investment

Mr. McAllion: What is her assessment of the impact of the proposed multilateral agreement on investment on measures to reduce inequalities between rich and poor countries. [18424]

Mr. Chaytor: What steps she will take to ensure that the multilateral agreement on investment includes mandatory safeguards against unsustainable economic development in the poorest countries. [18428]

Clare Short: The multilateral agreement on investment is designed to introduce rules for investment flows, primarily between Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to ensure that foreign investors are treated in the same way as domestic investors. The MAI is not designed for poorer

developing countries but, of course, it could become a model and we are supporting consultation with them on how their interests can be taken into account. My Department is commissioning a study to look at any implications the MAI may have for these countries. The Government will work towards the eventual establishment of a more widely applicable World Trade Organisation agreement on international investment.

Mr. McAllion: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Governments, in particular the Governments of poor countries, must remain free to impose restrictions on foreign inward investment, whether that is to protect their populations or their environments? If she does, can she assure the House that the Government will never sign up to any multilateral agreement on investment that allows multinationals or transnational corporations to use the World Trade Organisation to overrule restrictions that have been placed on inward investment by Governments in the interests of their people and their environments?

Clare Short: I think that my hon. Friend's concerns are a little misplaced. Overwhelmingly, the desire of poor countries is to attract more inward investment to bring about the development that will enable them to have the full economic growth that will benefit the poor. The multilateral agreement on investment is currently intended to apply only to OECD countries and says only that Governments who sign up to it voluntarily are not allowed to treat domestic investment and inward investment differently. In that agreement, which the Government hope to sign, we are trying to ensure protection for core labour standards and environmental standards, for example. We are trying to ensure that, if it becomes a model for the future, the future interests of developing countries are protected. My hon. Friend's fears are slightly misguided. We need more investment in those countries, not less.

Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the context of the attempts by some multinational companies to sabotage the current climate negotiations in Kyoto, it is crucial that the present OECD non-binding code of good practice is made binding within the multilateral agreement on investment?

Clare Short: I am not sure whether multinational companies are more to blame than Governments for dragging their feet. Companies can promote advertising campaigns, but Governments are responsible for protecting the future interests of the world's people. That is where the primary responsibility lies. I share my hon. Friend's concern and assure him that we are seeking to have the OECD guidelines on multinationals' corporate behaviour associated with the multilateral agreement on investment.

Mr. Faber: I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that trade and investment are essential for developing countries. While the multilateral agreement on investment is a welcome step, when will the Government accept as their goal the complementary policy of global free trade by 2020? The right hon. Lady has not been afraid to adopt other targets. Why will she not adopt that one?

Clare Short: That topic has been raised in the House before, when I am sure the hon. Gentleman was present.


I have said to him that my view is that broadening trade on beneficial terms is our objective, but that for the very poorest and frailest economies I agree with the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report that a rapid opening up could damage frail economies. We need to include them in the process, but in a way that will enable them to strengthen their economies to take advantage of an opening up. I do not know whether the date that the hon. Gentleman suggests is right. That is the sort of progress that we favour and we are seeking to promote it and work with countries and with the World Trade Organisation to bring it about.

Mr. MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend comment on President Clinton's failure to secure an agreement for a fast track on free trade in the United States? That reflects grave concerns in north America about the failure to add a social dimension to the complex question of trade. Whether on the MAI, which is the subject of the question, or on forthcoming meetings of the World Trade Organisation, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will side with President Clinton and most other democratic countries in seeking a social element and will not bow to the wishes of multinational companies and authoritarian Governments in the third world?

Clare Short: Obtaining agreement on core labour standards and environmental protection so that globalisation does not lead to a levelling down is an enormously important priority for all the people of the world, wherever they live, otherwise we could have what has been called the rush to the bottom. As my hon. Friend knows, there is no prospect of immediate progress on the adoption by the World Trade Organisation of the human rights clause that many people advocate, but we are seeking to make progress through the International Labour Organisation and by introducing incentives in the European Union's general system of preferences in the form of greater privileges to countries that guarantee core labour standards. I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but we must mobilise more international support for that objective.

Intermediate Technology

Mr. Boswell: What assistance she is offering for the adoption of intermediate technology by developing countries. [18425]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Our Department offers a broad range of support to encourage the adoption of appropriate intermediate technology solutions in developing countries through our country programmes, our research and knowledge work and through the joint funding scheme for non-governmental organisations.

Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that intermediate technology is not second best if it is the appropriate technology to meet the need? British companies and non-governmental organisations are particularly strong in that area. As the White Paper was rather feeble on this subject, will he make amends by giving it an enhanced emphasis?

Mr. Foulkes: The White Paper was feeble on no subject. It was greatly welcomed by all the

non-governmental organisations and even by the Opposition spokesman. Last year, our Department supported the intermediate technology development group to the tune of more than £3 million. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in this matter, but if he considers objectively what we have spent and our commitment, he will agree that this is a priority of the new Labour Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of former Overseas Development Administration support for such projects and for projects more generally, would it not be interesting to take a snapshot year, perhaps in the mid-1980s, and revisit all the projects that were supported in that year with British taxpayers' money to see to what extent they are still being properly managed and utilised to the benefit of the recipient countries? I asked that question following my visit in 1991 to the Orissa health project in southern India, which I found to be a disaster area.

Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend and I are spending some time examining all our projects to see how effective they are. The Select Committee on International Development could carry out the role that my hon. Friend suggests. I assure him that, under the White Paper to which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) referred, projects such as the Pergau dam would receive no support from the new Labour Government.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that, although intermediate technology is appropriate in many circumstances, high technology is sometimes also appropriate for third-world development? I am thinking particularly of sustainable energy policies. Is not the development of renewable energy often the means by which underdeveloped countries can make the leap from underdevelopment to sustainable development? What do the Government intend to do about encouraging the transfer of such technology to the underdeveloped world?

Mr. Foulkes: The transfer of our technology to transition countries in eastern and central Europe has been achieved through the know-how fund. Some of the techniques used by the know-how fund can now be extended to developing countries, especially in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have supported successful work in South Africa to train young unemployed people in information technology. Those people have obtained work very quickly, which shows the effectiveness of our support for such work in those countries.

Mr. Grant: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to visit South Africa. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will urge her to visit the computer information technology centre in Welkom in the Free State. She will see there an excellent project run by black British expatriates who are teaching people in places such as Bronville and Tahbong how to use information technology. Will he also examine how those people are working with the local population and use their example as a model for future development to meet the White Paper's objectives?

Mr. Foulkes: The project to which my hon. Friend refers is precisely that to which I was referring earlier. I am very pleased that—I hope next week—I shall be able to meet him and the organiser of that project.

St. Helena

Dr. Marek: What plans she has to visit St. Helena. [18426]

Mr. Foulkes: Last week, I met the delegation of councillors from St. Helena and had useful and constructive discussions with them. As my hon. Friend knows, however, lead responsibility for the dependent territories lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am discussing with my colleagues ways in which contacts between Her Majesty's Government and the Government and people of St. Helena can be developed constructively.

Dr. Marek: I warmly welcome that remark. The situation on St. Helena is now being addressed. If my hon. Friend can get there, I am sure that St. Helenians would be delighted with a ministerial visit. Will he pay particular attention to St. Helena's need for an airport or airstrip? If a feasibility study is possible, will he ensure that it is undertaken with a view to determining what is possible and practicable, not how expensive an airport or airstrip is and why it should not be built?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the Government in this matter. We have offered to finance a comprehensive study of all possible air links and options to improve access to St. Helena by air. The only ministerial visit to St. Helena was made in 1699, which indicates how difficult it is to get there.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I should like the Minister to know that I visited St. Helena on behalf of Her Majesty's Government rather more recently than 1699. When he considers an airstrip, will he bear in mind the opinion of the islanders—the Saints? The last time I was there they did not want an airstrip.

Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's visit did not stick in the minds of the St. Helenian councillors I met last week—although I am sure that it stuck in his mind. I assure him that the views of the people and representatives of St. Helena will be taken fully into account in an access study.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister appreciate that, last week, the St. Helena delegation said that they could not remember ever having received a visit from a Minister? He would therefore be warmly received if he were to go, particularly if he were to find an aid package and take a promise from the Government that full UK citizenship for St. Helenians—which was removed in 1981—will be restored.

Mr. Foulkes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's views on citizenship. That matter is being considered sympathetically by other Departments. I assure him, however, that we have agreed with the St. Helena Government a country policy plan that, over the next three years, will involve expenditure by the United Kingdom Government of £26 million, which is £1,500 per capita—the highest per capita expenditure of any of our programmes.

Children in War Zones

Mr. Timms: What steps she is taking to encourage implementation of the Machel recommendations on children in war zones. [18427]

Mr. Foulkes: We greatly welcome the Machel report and have already pledged £200,000 to enable the newly appointed UN Secretary-General's special representative on children and armed conflict to begin his work to co-ordinate international action in response to the report. In addition, we have offered to host a meeting in London during our presidency of the European Union to encourage our European partners to give sympathetic consideration to the special representative's work and priorities.

Mr. Timms: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's reply. He will know that the report for the United Nations Children Fund, for which Mrs. Machel was responsible, highlighted the issue of households headed by children. He will also know that it is estimated that there could be 80,000 such households in Rwanda following the conflict there, that there are many more in Uganda as a result of the conflict in the north of that country and as a result of AIDS, and that there are more such households elsewhere. Does he agree that the issue needs to be recognised in a policy? Will he tell the House what steps the Department is taking to address the issue of households headed by children?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue. It is a terrible tragedy that when parents have died in conflicts or from diseases such as AIDS, a young child heads the household. The new special representative, Mr. Otunnu, is well qualified to undertake his task and we shall give him all the support we can.

Chevening Scholarship Programme

Mr. Rowe: What plans she has for the Chevening scholarship programme. [18429]

Mr. Foulkes: Expenditure plans for the next financial year are under negotiation now between officials of my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Chevening scholarship programme is funded by the Foreign Office. My Department contributes only in countries where we have an aid programme and excludes military training. We are currently reviewing how our contribution can be made consistent with the aims set out in the White Paper, particularly that of poverty eradication.

Mr. Rowe: I suggest to the Minister that this valuable programme could achieve the purposes of the White Paper if the allocation of scholarships was skewed much more towards primary health care programmes, the development of programmes for disability, primary education and similar things rather than, as at present, its valuable contribution being skewed towards business and technology. Will the Minister consider that suggestion rather than there being any risk of scrapping the programme?

Mr. Foulkes: We are certainly not planning to scrap the programme. We are looking at precisely what the


hon. Gentleman suggests—reorienting it towards our priorities. Last year, £24 million was spent on 3,500 scholars. We want to ensure that all the money spent is consistent with our poverty eradication programme. I am sure that even the Leader of the Opposition agrees with that.

Rain Forests (Brazil)

Mr. Sheerman: What steps she is taking to work with the Government of Brazil to ensure that its continued economic development does not result in further destruction of its rain forests. [18430]

Clare Short: Our technical co-operation programme with Brazil is our largest in Latin America and focuses heavily on the environment. Our major activity is forestry, in particular addressing sustainable management issues in the Amazon rain forest. We are also active in the G7 pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest which seeks to reduce the rate of deforestation in a manner consistent with the sustainable development of the area's natural and human resources. More widely, we are working to help to ensure that economic development and trade in forestry products is managed sustainably and is combined with protection of sensitive habitats.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend mount a serious investigation into the allegations of corruption in IBAMA—the environmental agency that is supposed to protect the rain forests? There are allegations that no fines are ever paid, that the loggers get off scot free and that from top to bottom, IBAMA, which we help to fund through the G7, is corrupt. There are further allegations that more logging than ever before is going on in the rain forests of Brazil. Will my right hon. Friend mount an investigation?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I would be more than happy to investigate the points he raises. I hope that he will let me have whatever details he has. The lesson of sustainable forest management is that if the local poor people can manage the future of the forest, they conserve it. It is when short-term commercial interests come in that we get the destruction of forestry.

Mr. Randall: Only 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom aid budget goes towards sustaining biodiversity. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to increase that percentage, bearing in mind the fact that, at the current rates of habitat destruction, the forests of Africa could disappear by 2050?

Clare Short: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's figure is correct, but I doubt it. There is a strong and growing environmental strand to our work. We are doing a lot of work on conserving forests in Cameroon, and learning how to conserve the other remaining forests of Africa. Forestry and sustaining biodiversity are major priorities of our work. Some of that work is done through the global environment facility, which is an international treaty that we helped to fund. Work is being done on replenishment, but I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Assistance (Poorest Countries)

Mr. Evans: What plans she has to assist the poorest countries in the world. [18431]

Clare Short: We shall focus our energies and resources on the elimination of poverty and mobilising the political will necessary to meet the international poverty eradication targets by 2015. To that end, we shall work in partnership with other donors, Governments of developing countries and others—including the private sector—who are committed to eradicating poverty.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that answer. While targeting the poorest countries, will the Secretary of State also take note of the pockets of poverty in other parts of the world? I make a particular plea on behalf of Brazil, where Church groups and other voluntary organisations are working to help with the problem of the street children.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. The poorest countries must have the top priority for resource transfers and investment to enable them to work their way out of poverty, but many middle-income countries have serious problems. As our White Paper says, those areas do not need big resource transfers, but need support for changes that will protect the neediest people. We are committed to that work, including work with street children in Latin America. [Interruption]

Madam Speaker: Order. Conversations are much too noisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted that the House agrees. It will now come to order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Clapham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I met with ministerial colleagues and others and will have further meetings later today.

Mr. Clapham: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that coal makes a significant contribution to the British energy economy. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom deep coal mining industry is facing a crisis. Will my right hon. Friend consider short-term measures that may help the industry, such as looking at the negotiations with the French on the interconnector, introducing a restraint on opencast mining and increasing the stocking obligation of the generators? That would allow the British coal industry to survive until the initiatives of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry have been introduced.

The Prime Minister: We are looking at many of the things that my hon. Friend has discussed and put on the agenda today. I understand that the three main


UK generators—National Power, PowerGen and Eastern—and RJB Mining have agreed in principle to make supply arrangements covering the period between now and 30 June 1998. That will allow the UK deep mine coal industry to continue production at present levels without immediate redundancies or pit closures. That is a six-month delay. However, it is important that we use that opportunity to review the long-term energy requirements of the nation and make sure that we have an energy policy consistent with a competitive industry and the long-term energy needs of the country.

Mr. Hague: The Opposition will support the Government tonight, as we believe that married couples should not be discriminated against by the benefit system. Clearly, the Minister who has resigned in the past half hour does not agree with that. Does the Prime Minister believe in that principle?

The Prime Minister: I believe that, in the choice of priorities that we have available to us, helping lone parents off benefit and into work is the best thing that we can do for them. That is why we have a package worth £200 million specifically for lone parents.

Mr. Hague: Let me ask the Prime Minister the same question again, as he did not answer it. Does he support the principle that married couples should not be discriminated against, or does he just want to save the £5 million at stake next year from the measure?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman says that the figure is £5 million. It is not £5 million or anything like it. Over a period of time it amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds. It is important to emphasise that lone parents currently on benefit will lose no cash whatever. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the effect is to equalise arrangements for married couples on the same income. If the Government had unlimited resources, no doubt such a change would not be necessary, but we believe that it is better to spend the available resources on helping lone parents off benefit and into work.

Mr. Hague: Why, then, did the Prime Minister not have the courage to say that before the election? Does he recall the Secretary of State for Scotland saying that the proposal had nothing to do with moral principles or an effective welfare system but was designed to win popularity at the Tory party conference? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland be joining us in the Lobby tonight? Why was the Labour party not straight with people before the election?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have in front of me the comments that we made before the election. We said that
We will stick within the existing budget
and that
we can offer better and different ways of getting single parents back into work.
There is a choice within the priorities. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will support the Government tonight. Perhaps he can now say whether he will support the Government's £200 million programme helping lone parents back into work.

Mr. Hague: We will support the Government when they are right and we will oppose them when they are

wrong. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to claim that Labour said that it would do this before the election. When the Secretary of State for Social Security was asked whether she would introduce the legislation, did she not say:
No, of course not"?
Did not the Financial Secretary say that it was
a shameful attack on lone parents"?
Did not the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport say that with such a policy the previous Government were going in completely the wrong direction? Which way will he vote tonight? Why was the Labour party not straight with people before the election?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but that is simply not correct. My right hon. Friend made it clear before the election, as I did—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

The Prime Minister: We made it clear before the election that we would stick within the existing budget. We said that it was important to give lone parents a chance to get off benefit and into work. That is why we have not only the £200 million programme for lone parents as part of the new deal, but the £300 million programme for after-school clubs and centres. That will mean that all lone parents will have after-school care for their children. Independent research suggests that lone parents who get work will receive some £50 a week more. We have made a simple choice within priorities. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he will support us in our programme to help lone parents off benefit and into work, where they will be better off.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is quite right to pursue that policy. I asked why he was not straight about its implications before the election. Does he recall saying on Radio 4 when asked about it:
No, we believe we can avoid that within the existing budgets"?
That is what he actually said. He was not straight with people before the election. Why can he not concede that he was wrong not to be level with the country before the election?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but once again the right hon. Gentleman is reading out only one part of the sentence. I said before the election:
We will stick within the existing budget…but we can offer better and different ways of getting single parents back into work.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition either want the facts or they do not. I suspect that they do not. The right hon. Gentleman is supporting us today, but it is a simple choice between the Conservative party, which would put through benefit changes but not offer help in getting people back to work, and the present Government, who are helping people off benefit and into work. That is the difference that people will remember at the next election.

Mr. Hague: Tonight we shall vote for a principle that is right, while the Labour party will be dragged through the Lobby to vote for a measure which before the election it called shameful, malign and completely wrong. Is that


not another example of a Government without principles and without values? Is it not a case of us having the courage of our convictions and one resigned Minister having the courage of his, but of the Labour party in general having neither courage nor convictions?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has still not told us whether he supports our welfare-to-work package. As for the difference in priorities between the Conservative party and Labour, there is the £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme; that is not a Tory policy. There is the £1.2 billion school building programme; that is not a Tory policy. There is the £900 million release of capital receipts; that is not a Tory policy. There is the £50 extra help with heating bills for pensioners; that is not a Tory policy. There is the section 11 funding cut reversed by this Government; that is not a Tory policy. There is also the housing benefit change reversed by this Government; that is not a Tory policy.
There are different priorities, but we believe that the most important thing is to help lone parents off benefit and into work, and to do so in a way that does not lose control of public finances. No one will go back to the days of the record borrowing requirement of the Conservatives. We shall take the tough decisions necessary, but balance them with fairness to help those people back into work.

Ms Abbott: Does the Prime Minister accept that even if the new deal for lone parents is 100 per cent. successful, there will always be women, especially mothers with children under five, who are not able to work? How does he justify cutting those women's benefits?

The Prime Minister: First, as I pointed out before, for existing lone parents there is no cash loss of benefit. The change effectively means that those who come on and become lone parents will get the same as couples on the same income. That is not exactly as my hon. Friend has represented it.
Secondly, I must tell my hon. Friend very frankly indeed that we were elected as a Government because people believed that we would keep a tight control on public finance, and because we said clearly before the election, as I repeat now, that what is important is to get as many people as possible off benefit and into work. What they need for the future is not to live in a household and bring up children where there is no work in the family, but the chance to get into work. We shall help them to do so. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I think that that is a better way of achieving our aims.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has talked about a choice of priorities, and about limited resources. Very well then: if he were to close the loophole used by the very rich to avoid taxes through offshore trust funds, that would generate a sum equivalent to twice what is needed to restore the cut for lone parents. If there is a choice of priorities, why does he not do that first?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman says is simply incorrect. In the Budget measures were announced that will raise some £1½ billion through closing various tax loopholes. The Liberal Democrats will always say that there are easy, painless ways of getting money.

There are not, I am afraid. Choices and priorities have to be decided, and no matter what the short-term difficulty may be, I shall carry on doing that.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister has a choice; he has just ignored it. We agree with the Government about the need to break dependency. We applaud them for providing child care for single parents who want to work. But why does that have to be paid for by single parents who have to stay at home? Does the Prime Minister not realise that people are simply bewildered about why a Labour Government should choose to ask the poor to pay for the poor while the rich can continue to duck their taxes?

The Prime Minister: That is simply not right. The right hon. Gentleman says that he fully supports our welfare-to-work programme, and the arrangements for single parents under that programme, but his party refused to support the windfall tax that brings it about. As I explained to one of his hon. Friends last week, the Liberal Democrats will sit there and ask for more money for everything. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But they do; not just for schools and hospitals, but for jobs, transport and the environment. There are limited resources.
When we came to power, we made it clear that we had to stick within existing budgets and guidelines because we were not going to lose control of the money that is available. Within the money that is available, we have lots of difficult choices—I have just listed a whole series of them—but we will not lose control of financial prudence within the limits that we have. We have given that additional £200 million to lone parents and £300 million more for after-school care clubs which will look after not merely the children of lone parents, but others. I believe that that is the right choice to make.

Mr. Snape: Will the Prime Minister help the House in tracing the £190 billion of public money revealed recently by the Liberal Democrats as being available for expenditure on public services? Has he heard the rumour that the money has been buried in a magic forest by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, where it is being guarded by his economic advisers—Tinky Winky and the rest of the Teletubbies?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think that Tinky Winky would make a better economic spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Townend: Why was the Prime Minister not more honest at the election on another matter? Why did he not tell middle England that savers who took full advantage of TESSAs and PEPs would be penalised? Is that not the height of hypocrisy when the Paymaster General—the man who dreamt up these proposals—is a beneficiary of a multi-million-pound Channel Islands trust? Does this not show that, under new Labour, fat cats flourish while middle England suffers? The Prime Minister said, "Put your trust in me." His Ministers put their trusts offshore.

The Prime Minister: First—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he said about the Paymaster General. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I have never known such intolerance and noise during Prime Minister's questions.

The Prime Minister: Secondly, in relation to individual savings accounts—as I pointed out to the


Leader of the Opposition last week—6 million people will get the chance to put money in tax-free accounts. That is a considerable increase. Not merely the same amount of money but more money will be available by way of tax relief. For couples, £100,000—in other words, £50,000 each—will be the amount that can go into the fund. In addition, and contrary to what has been said by the Opposition, this is not retrospective at all, and there will be full protection for people up to April 1999. That is a far better deal, offering more help to more people than the Conservatives offered.

Ms Dari Taylor: Many of our youngsters are facing a serious crisis. One in 10 children who are absent from school are supposedly on GCSE courses but feel confident neither about being on those courses nor about their success. Many of them who are in youth courts—some 42 per cent.—are excluded from schools. The previous Administration excluded those youngsters and put them in this position. [Interruption.] Will our social exclusion unit embrace them and ensure that they do not feel excluded? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the scorn and derision of Opposition Members. Much of the crime in our country today is created exactly as a result of high levels of deprivation, with families that are sometimes third-generation unemployed. That is precisely why we are putting £3.5 billion into the welfare-to-work programme, which will allow those youngsters to come off the dole and have some chance of finding work and opportunities for the future. That is a better and more intelligent use of resources, allowing them to stand on their own two feet and be independent, and giving them the chance, often for the first time in a generation, to work and earn a decent standard of living. That is the way to help people on benefit.

Mr. Willis: I returned this morning from Ireland, having met about 40 women's groups in Belfast yesterday, all of which asked me to convey a message to the Prime Minister about lone-parent benefits. They have few child care facilities and live in areas of high unemployment, yet he wants to take a benefit away from them and harm the poorest people when he should be tackling the rich. Will he accept what the Chancellor is reported as saying in The Guardian today: that by closing tax loopholes and using that money we can tax the rich rather than the poorest in our society?

The Prime Minister: The point on tax that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made earlier is nonsense: the money is not available to substitute in the way that he said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman said to people in Northern Ireland that £140 million was there specifically to help people, including lone parents, off benefit and into work.
No existing lone parent is losing cash money—I have made that clear already—and the impact of our measures will be to allow many people the chance to get help with child care, with skills and with educational opportunities for the first time in their lives. The hon. Gentleman will

have to face the fact, as we have, that within limited resources that is the right priority for people and their future.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the importance of the Kyoto summit and the leading work of the Labour Government in getting the politicians to acknowledge the importance of an agreement for tomorrow's generation, our children, as opposed to the vested interests that some of them seem to be putting first? Will he ensure that all the signatories carry through the agreement to which they sign up?

The Prime Minister: We hope very much that we can reach agreement in Kyoto. If we can, it will be an extremely important step forward. If the percentage reductions currently under discussion are agreed, it will be less than we and other European countries might have wished, but it will be a huge step forward from where we were even a few weeks ago.
If we can get the developed countries to agree substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 levels by 2010 and then, equally important, bind in the developing countries to play their part, we will have created for the first time the framework in which the world can make real progress. The part played by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in achieving that has been absolutely marvellous.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Northern Ireland how he can argue that he must meet Gerry Adams tomorrow, in the same way as he meets the leaders of democratic parties in Northern Ireland? Is it not a fact that. those other leaders, who represent constituencies in the House, do not come to Downing street with three members of an outlawed Army Council that controls Semtex for bombs and weapons for murder? Is he not aware that those very members were in post when Downing street was blown up in an attempt to kill the previous Cabinet of this country?

The Prime Minister: Of course I recall that, as I recall all the violence and injury caused by the Provisional IRA over a very long period, but if we cannot get parties talking in the process we will never get a lasting settlement to the problems of Northern Ireland. Every party to the talks process has to sign up to the principles of democracy and non-violence. In my view, it is essential that if they do so they are treated in the same way as other parties, which means meeting me and other people in the course of the process.
There never has been and never will be any concession in respect of violence offered by those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred or by anyone else: if they return to violence they will go out of the talks. The only alternative to involving everyone in the talks process and trying to make progress is ending up with the situation with which he is very familiar, in which children grow up in divided communities and there is violence, sectarianism and all the scars of history that have been on the people of Northern Ireland over centuries. If we can remove that by getting people talking, it is worth taking a few risks to get them to talk.

Mr. Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a downsizing in my constituency of Chorley,


where the leader of the Conservatives officially left the party last night to join the Labour party? That is along with the downsizing of the Liberal party Democrat after a senior Liberal Democrat councillor also crossed the floor to join the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear it. I await with interest the application of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). My hon. Friend is right in that many of those who used to support the Conservative party can see what a hopeless shower the party is, in opposition as well as in government, and are coming over to the Labour party.

Mr. Blunt: When the Prime Minister considers the past seven months, will he think about vitamin B6 users, home owners who have a mortgage, home owners who are presumptuous enough to want a doorstep, car owners, sports pistol enthusiasts and country sports enthusiasts? All those people, as well as those of us who are partial to a rib of beef, want to know why the Prime Minister was not honest with them before the election and why he did not tell them that he aspired to be not so much the Queen's first Minister as the nation's first nanny.

The Prime Minister: First, on the banning of beef on the bone, as the hon. Gentleman knows, advice was tendered a week ago by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—the scientific body that advises us. The chief medical officer then gave his advice and we followed that advice to the letter. Had we not followed that advice, we would have been subject to criticism.
As for what the hon. Gentleman says on interest rates, of course we could have carried on as the previous Government did at the end of the 1980s when there were warning signs in the economy. We ended up with interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year, record repossessions and record bankruptcies. We have taken the measures both to cure the budget deficit and to bring inflation under control that were necessary. One of the best but certainly most curious things is that the Labour party is now the party of financial prudence, not the Conservative party.

Mr. Home Robertson: My right hon. Friend may recall that a former Prime Minister once said that the national health service was safe in her hands, but that we ended up with a demented, bureaucratic internal market in which doctor had to compete against doctor and hospital had to compete against hospital, and patients had to be very patient indeed. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this week's White Paper is an important step towards reinstating the NHS as a national health service? I must choose my words carefully, but may I say that it is very welcome that we are implementing a vital socialist policy so early in our career.

The Prime Minister: Bit radical, that. Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] It is interesting, is it not, that

Conservative Members do not ask a single question about the health service the day after we put together a White Paper on it. It is tremendously important that we are not merely getting the additional resources into the NHS but ending the absurdity of hospital competing against hospital and doctor competing against doctor, which is wholly contrary to the ethics and principles of the NHS. In addition, over time we can reform and improve the NHS so that in three or four years we no longer talk about saving it, but talk about the massive changes and improvements brought about by a Labour Government, a Labour Government having introduced the NHS in the teeth of the opposition of the Tories.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous number of representations that I and other hon. Members have received from councils, charities, companies and individuals regarding the removal of advance corporation tax credit? Does he accept that, devastating though his raid on pension funds will be, his Government would have been subject to far less opposition if he had at least been honest about his intentions before the election?

The Prime Minister: First, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the tax promises of the Labour party were clear before the election and we have kept every single one of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes we have. Secondly, in relation to advance corporation tax, the Confederation of British Industry welcomed the changes we proposed, which is merely an indication of how far away today's Tory party is from business. Thirdly, after the initial transition period, there is a £2 billion corporation tax cut for business as a result of the changes—yes, cut for business—and it is this Government, a Labour Government, who have introduced the lowest corporation tax rate and the lowest tax rate for small businesses this country has ever seen.

Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent historic decision in Ottawa, where 110 countries joined together to ban land mines? Will he undertake to do everything possible to persuade those countries that have not yet signed the agreement that it is the real way forward to remove that scourge from our planet?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may oppose it, but the land mines treaty has done a superb job and we on Government Benches support it thoroughly. Furthermore, it is another initiative in which the new Government played a leading role. In addition, we are providing extra help and resources in order to remove existing land mines in other countries. It is a great step forward and I am particularly proud of the part our Government played in it.

Mental Incapacity

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement on mental incapacity, which has been made in another place—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me get people out of the Chamber—it is very noisy. I am sure that hon. Members will move quickly and quietly so that we can hear the statement.

Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In my answer to hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 28 October 1997, Official Report, column 787, I said that it was the Government's intention to issue a consultation paper on the subject of mental incapacity. I am pleased to announce the publication of a Green Paper on that subject today. It concerns the law in England and Wales, and examines a wide range of issues concerning the legal rights of people who are unable to make decisions for themselves, or who cannot communicate their decisions, as the result of disease, disability, or injury.
As it currently stands, the law affords little protection either to mentally incapacitated adults or to those who care for them. The law is confusing and fragmented: many carers in particular are expected to make decisions on behalf of incapacitated adults without a clear idea of what legal authority there is for those decisions. Everyone will know of a friend or relative whose life is affected by the unsatisfactory state of the current law.
Let me provide just three examples: the first is a young man with a learning disability who has reached the age of 18 and wants to be able to make some decisions for himself, such as what clothes to wear, or where to live. A second example might be a young woman, formerly a high-flying executive until a severe car crash caused brain damage, making her incapable of taking all but the simplest decisions about her life, health or welfare. A third example would be an elderly woman who is suffering from dementia. She is in a home and currently there are concerns about how her finances are protected. The present law does not provide sufficient guidance or safeguards for each of the people I have mentioned, or for those who care for them. The Green Paper therefore invites views on the need to create a legal framework for decision making on behalf of people who lack mental capacity. The Government are determined that the law should be developed and modernised.
I must make it clear at the outset that the Green Paper does not seek views on euthanasia. Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, at an individual's own request or for a merciful motive. That is not acceptable to the Government. We fully support the view of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in its report of February 1994 that euthanasia is unacceptable and cannot be sanctioned in any circumstances. Euthanasia is illegal now and will remain illegal, so let us not be side-tracked by that issue.
The current law lacks coherence because it has developed piecemeal. It is unsystematic and full of glaring gaps. It has many areas of uncertainty, and fails to offer

adequate protection either for mentally incapacitated adults or for the people who look after them. The scale of the problem must not be underestimated. The range of people who are let down by the current law is extensive. They include adults with profound learning disabilities; victims of accidents, such as road traffic accident victims who suffer brain damage; those who lose mental capacity as a result of a stroke; and those who lose mental capacity later in life—for example, those who suffer from dementia.
In preparing the Green Paper, the Government acknowledge two debts. The first is to the Law Commission, whose work in this area culminated in 1995 in the publication of its report entitled, "Mental Incapacity". The Green Paper published today is based closely on the wide-ranging and coherent set of recommendations contained in the Law Commission's final report. The Government's second debt is to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, chaired by Lord Walton, whose report was published in 1994.
I recognise that many of the issues raised in the Green Paper are sensitive and attract strong views. The Green Paper seeks the broadest range of responses before policy can be settled. With the exception of our absolute opposition to euthanasia, the Government have no fixed or final views on any of the questions. We will develop policy only when the consultation process is complete.
The areas covered by the Green Paper include definitions of incapacity and what is meant by the best interests of an incapacitated person. It also considers the need for a more informal framework for those making day-to-day decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. It looks at the possibilities open to someone who is able to make arrangements for a time when mental capacity may be lost. It examines the law relating to the making of advance statements and proposals for a new form of power of attorney that would cover health care and personal welfare issues, as well as financial issues.
The independent supervision of medical and research procedures is also considered, as is the possibility of increased protection under public law for people with a mental incapacity and any others at risk. Finally, the Green Paper looks at a possible judicial and administrative framework to supervise and regulate all those arrangements.
The first set of issues examined in the Green Paper are the key principles that underpin the Law Commission's recommendations. The first of those is the need to replace the variety of different tests of mental capacity with a single, straightforward statutory definition. The proposed test of capacity would focus in each particular case on the decision that has to be taken and on the ability of the person concerned to understand the nature of the decision required, as well as its implications. That would avoid unnecessary intrusion into an individual's personal affairs, and would allow for as much involvement as possible by him in the decision-making process. It would allow a person to continue to make everyday decisions about, for example, how his finances should be organised or what presents to buy for Christmas, even if that person was deemed incapable of making a decision about whether a particular form of medical treatment was or was not appropriate.
The second principle is that decisions on behalf of people under an incapacity should be made in their best interests. The decision maker should take account of a number of factors, including the ascertainable past and present wishes of the individual concerned; the views of others whom it is appropriate and practical to consult; and whether the purpose for which the decision is required can be achieved as effectively in a way that is less restrictive of the individual's freedom of action. Decisions taken on behalf of a person lacking capacity would therefore require a consideration of that person as an individual.
The Green Paper seeks views on the practical application of those criteria. For example, there may be differences of opinion between those who are to be consulted and conflicts of interest may arise. For example, two close relatives may differ about where a person should be looked after—a spouse might wish to continue to care for the patient at home, while a son or daughter might favour nursing home care.
The Law Commission also proposed that a legal framework be established to govern the many informal day-to-day decisions that are made by carers, family members or treatment providers on behalf of those under a mental incapacity. That legal framework would include a general authority for decisions to be taken on behalf of an incapacitated adult, provided those decisions are reasonable and in the person's best interests. The Government accept those proposals in principle, but remain concerned that any such system should have adequate safeguards built in to ensure that incapacitated people and their assets are protected against abuse. The Green Paper therefore seeks views on the additional safeguards that might be needed.
One area of the Law Commission report that has raised particular concern in some quarters is that involving health care decisions intended to have effect when a person loses mental capacity. Those decisions are commonly known as living wills, but a more accurate term—advance statement—is used by the Law Commission and in the Green Paper.
There is a misconception that the Law Commission's proposals would make legal provision for advance statements for the first time. That is not the case. Valid advance refusals already have full effect at common law. This means that a person who is worried about the possibility of a particular form of medical treatment already has the right to refuse that treatment by way of an advance refusal. A Jehovah's Witness, for example, can already refuse to receive a blood transfusion. That refusal is binding on the doctor and cannot be overruled.
An advance statement enables people to leave instructions about their potential medical treatment, in anticipation of a time when they are no longer capable of making decisions or of communicating them. The sorts of decisions that can be made are only those that a fully competent adult is allowed to make.
When mentally competent, each of us has the right to consent to or refuse any form of medical treatment. The instructions included in an advance statement would enable exactly the same decisions to be made, and can therefore include both consenting to treatment and refusing it. As is the position for competent adults,

however, advance statements cannot force a doctor to give a particular type of treatment, or ask a doctor to do anything that is illegal. An advance statement could not, for example, ask a doctor deliberately to end life. The blunt truth is that if a doctor took such action, he or she would be exposed to a charge of murder.
An advance statement would, however, allow patients with cancer, who know that they may at some future time lose capacity to consent to treatment, or capacity to communicate that consent, to provide that consent in advance. An advance statement could even allow the patient to consent to the use of new drugs on a trial basis, if that is what the patient wanted. Equally, a terminally ill patient could request that treatment is provided to sustain life for the longest possible time, even if the resultant treatment might be thought by others to be unnecessarily burdensome.
The Government recognise that the Law Commission's proposals on advance statements raise complex issues on which many people hold strong personal, religious or ethical opinions. For that reason, the Green Paper specifically seeks views on whether legislation in this area is appropriate, and, if so, what its objectives should be.
The Law Commission was of the opinion that certain types of serious medical procedures, including sterilisation and donation of tissue or bone marrow, should receive additional independent supervision to ensure that the best interests of the incapacitated individual are properly protected. That supervision could take the form of consideration by the courts, an independent second medical opinion, or certain other types of supervisory mechanism.
The Law Commission suggested that, in certain limited circumstances, a departure from the best interests criteria, which I mentioned earlier, might be justified. One of those relates to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state. In view of the different opinions that exist about whether such patients can, in fact, be said to have best interests, the Government believe that it is important that the criteria are considered very carefully in each and every case that arises. The Green Paper seeks views on the vital ethical considerations that must be addressed in reaching decisions on the discontinuation of artificial nutrition and hydration in those cases.
The Law Commission also considered that there might be a case for departing from the best interests criteria in the area of medical procedures and research for the benefit of others. The commission recommended that it should be possible for those procedures to be authorised, in relation to a person without the capacity to consent to them, if the procedure would not cause the person significant harm and would be of significant benefit to others.
An example of that type of procedure is the removal of samples of blood or taking a mouth swab from the patient to investigate his or her genetic make-up. That could be of significant benefit to other members of the patient's family in identifying and treating inherited conditions. Procedures of this nature could also extend to non-therapeutic research into conditions from which the patient is suffering, for the benefit of others suffering from that condition. The Law Commission suggested that such research should be justifiable only where the procedures involved minimal risk for the patient.
The Green Paper seeks views on whether such research is ethical and reasonable, and on whether the conditions for research proposed in the Council of Europe convention on human rights and biomedicine provide adequate safeguards for patients unable to give consent.
The Law Commission also proposed an extension of the existing legal framework for enduring powers of attorney to include the concept of a "continuing power of attorney". At present, it is possible for people to make enduring powers of attorney to enable their property and financial affairs to be looked after if they become mentally incapable. The Law Commission's proposals would enable a person with capacity to appoint somebody to make decisions on his or her behalf if that capacity was ever lost. Under those provisions, the decisions that could be taken would cover health care and personal welfare matters in addition to financial matters.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics expressed concern that the decisions of attorneys are unlikely to be completely objective—for example, an attorney might find it difficult to decide whether to approve costly medical treatment or nursing care if he or she is either paying the bills or entitled to benefit from the patient's estate. Equally, given the changing nature of relationships, the choice of attorney might quickly become out of date and, by the time an attorney is asked to act, he or she might have lost the close rapport that once existed with the patient.
The Law Commission has attempted to take account of those concerns by proposing safeguards and by listing a number of areas where an attorney should not be able to act on behalf of a person without capacity. However, here, too, there are different views. The Green Paper therefore seeks responses on whether legislation in that area would be appropriate, as well as seeking comments on the Law Commission's detailed proposals.
The Law Commission also considered the need for new laws to ensure that a broader group of people are protected from abuse and neglect. That group would include people who may not be able to protect themselves, such as the elderly or those with serious physical illnesses, as well as those suffering from mental incapacity. In particular, it recommended that social services authorities should have a new duty to investigate cases of possible neglect or abuse, and should have short-term powers to protect people in those cases.
The Government believe that, although there may be merit in some of the Law Commission's recommendations concerning the new provisions, there may not be a pressing need for reform in the light of powers that already exist in this area. The consultation paper therefore seeks views on the need for legislation and on the practicalities of the proposals.
The Law Commission's proposals in each of these areas clearly have substantial implications for the legal and administrative systems that would be needed to manage and supervise their operation. The commission therefore recommended a new court jurisdiction that could deal with personal welfare and health care issues, as well as property and financial matters. The latter are currently dealt with by the Court of Protection and the Public Trust Office. The Law Commission's proposals would require a substantial extension of their jurisdiction, as well as offering an increased role for the civil courts.
The Government can see the advantage in having a unified jurisdiction in that area, but there would clearly be considerable implications for the court system, in terms of both resources and practicality. The consultation paper invites views on the structure proposed by the Law Commission and on the form and extent of court jurisdiction that would be appropriate in particular areas.
The Green Paper raises many issues of great sensitivity, complexity and importance. They must be addressed to ensure not only that the interests of incapacitated persons are adequately protected, but that those who must make decisions on their behalf have a clear legal framework within which to do so. The Government are determined to make progress in an area in which those who lack mental capacity, and those who care for them, are not adequately protected under the law today. The Government are equally determined that any reform should command the widest possible public support.
The Government have not yet made any decisions to legislate. Any legislation would be of wide-ranging social significance and of comparable scope and sensitivity to the Children Act 1989. I therefore hope that the Green Paper will generate a wide range of responses from all those with an interest in this area, whether professional or personal, in order to assist the Government in determining the best way forward.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I thank the Minister for his statement on what is, on any view, a very difficult subject. I shall not take too long in responding to the Minister's statement as I know that a great many of his hon. Friends want to spend much of today discussing the Government's conduct in relation to social security.
I am grateful to the Minister for making a statement in the House about a matter that is currently in the public eye, not least because of the Doctor Assisted Dying Bill, which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will shortly seek leave to introduce. I must inform the hon. Member that I shall vote against his motion.
I take this opportunity to thank the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics and the Law Commission for their invaluable work. We may not always agree with their suggestions and proposals, but they are always considered and cogent, and they deserve more parliamentary time. Indeed, the Law Commission's work receives precious little acknowledgment in the House. I trust that, to some extent, the Minister and I have redressed that.
I welcome the Government's announcement of a Green Paper on the Law Commission's draft Bill on mental incapacity. I hope that the consultation will be wide ranging and thorough, as there is a need for clarity and certainty in this aspect of the law, where little exists.
Is the Minister aware that English law appears to possess no procedures whereby a third party or a court can take a medical decision on behalf of an adult patient without capacity to take that decision? Is he also aware of the concern that public law provides no acceptable power to protect incapacitated or vulnerable people from abuse and neglect? Does he share my concern about clause 11 of the draft Bill, which would, if enacted, give scope to permit medical experiments on incapacitated patients without consent? I heard what he said about the limited nature of the proposal, but will he take on board the concerns that I and many other members of the public have about it?
I welcome the Government's firm stance against euthanasia. Will the Minister examine with the greatest possible care any proposals, from wherever they come, to legalise euthanasia, however clinically described, and to introduce so-called living wills? Disposing of the inconvenient, either by commission or omission, may be the next step.
The Minister spoke of the need for a more informal framework for making day-to-day decisions on behalf of an incapacitated person. Although I understand what he means, we should not lightly ignore the need for formality when the care of the vulnerable is in issue. I accept the Minister's analysis of the current law on incapacity, but he should tread very carefully down the path of rewriting the law without the fullest possible consideration of the legal, moral and ethical issues that are revealed by the Green Paper and the Law Commission report on mental incapacity.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member's support. I agree that, after the Law Commission published its report in 1995, having considered the matter carefully over a long period, it was right that the Government should take the matter forward as urgently as possible. I agree that it is crucial to have wide-ranging consultation. When he examines the Green Paper closely, he will discover that we are consulting on about 107 separate questions. This is a Green Paper of the deepest green, and we are determined to secure widespread support for the proposals.
If I understood the hon. and learned Member correctly, he agrees with me in relation to the present inadequacy of existing law, but I was slightly confused by his comments that appeared to link euthanasia and what I prefer to call advance statements. I carefully distinguished between the two. The Government have no time for euthanasia. As I have said, they remain firmly opposed to any idea that euthanasia might be legalised. However, that is not to say that there may not be a role for advance statements that indicate the approach that people who are at present mentally competent may wish to take if they lose mental capacity. To some extent, such advance statements are already recognised in our law. It is important that we have a comprehensive approach to the matter and that we develop a framework in which these decisions can be taken properly.

Ms Gisela Stuart: May I congratulate the Minister on his statement, which is welcome? I congratulate the Government on taking the Law Commission's work forward, but, to prevent any confusion outside the House, will he make it absolutely clear that the proposals have no connection with either euthanasia or so-called doctor-assisted suicide?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I repeat that the Government are firmly opposed to euthanasia, which is a deliberate action to end life. Anyone with the ability to make a decision is legally entitled to consent to or to refuse medical treatment. An advance statement is a way for a person simply to plan ahead for a time when he may no longer be able

to make or to convey his decision. That distinction lies at the heart of my statement and of the Green Paper, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point again.

Mr. John Burnett: We welcome the Government's open-minded approach to a difficult question. We realise that this part of the law is fraught with conflicts of interest. What is essential is independent advice for donors of extended powers of attorney, and for anyone considering making a so-called living will. Moreover, any witnesses to such documents must have proper independent medical qualifications. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the essential nature of those points before the matter proceeds further.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I mentioned the importance of seeking to resolve potential conflicts of interest, and the need for greater safeguards, particularly in regard to the securing of independent advice and support for carers who must sometimes make very difficult decisions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As my hon. Friend is flanked by both Scottish and English Health Ministers, may I ask whether the Government will revisit the possibility of tabling amendments to the Human Tissue Act 1961 to allow a hospital to take the organs of those in whom clinical death has been established by at least two surgeons—neither of whom will be the beneficiary as a renal transplant surgeon—to increase the number of available tissues? That was discussed in detail in a debate that I initiated on Friday 3 March 1979, and has also been discussed in ten-minute Bills. I think that the proposal is well known to Health Ministers, and it would seem to provide an opportunity for legislation.

Mr. Hoon: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution. I must tell him, however, that his proposal is well beyond the scope of the Green Paper, and is not the responsibility of my Department.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The Minister has maintained that the Government are opposed to euthanasia, yet they have not abandoned those sections of the Law Commission's draft Bill that would enshrine deliberate killing by omission. I refer to the withholding of hydration and nutrition. Is not that euthanasia by the back door?

Mr. Hoon: No. It has nothing to do with euthanasia. Under the present law, medical treatment may be withdrawn if it is judged to be in the patient's best interest not to continue it.

Mrs. Winterton: What constitutes medical treatment?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Lady will allow me to explain, I will draw an important distinction.
Decisions concerning the withdrawal of artificial feeding from people in a permanent vegetative state must be referred to a court. The Green Paper seeks views on whether decisions on the withdrawal of artificial feeding of patients should always be made by the courts, whether


a person with the new power of attorney to make treatment decisions can decide or whether there should be a "second opinion" procedure.
It is important to recognise that euthanasia is a deliberate act to end life. The intentional termination of life should not be confused with the withdrawal of treatment when it no longer has any beneficial effect, even though that may mean that patients die of their illnesses. Care to keep a patient comfortable should, of course, always be given.
The courts have held that when nutrition and hydration are provided artificially, they are being used to overcome a failure of bodily functions such as the ability to swallow. Just as dialysis to overcome kidney failure is medical treatment, so are artificial nutrition and hydration, which are used to overcome failure of some part of the digestive system.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Is it not an amazing, breathtaking coincidence that the Government have managed to make a 20-minute statement just before my ten-minute Bill? May I reassure my hon. Friend that my Bill is not about euthanasia, and does not advocate euthanasia? I do not think that there was any need to make the statement today.
When does my hon. Friend intend these proposals to become legislation? Who will speak on behalf of terminally ill patients, and will there be any legislation to give those patients a choice?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is a distinguished former Whip, and has written about these matters. He understands how they work rather better than I do. I cannot give him any idea of a likely date for legislation, not least because we have embarked on an extensive programme of consultation, and we need to see the results before we can decide whether legislation is necessary.

Mr. John Greenway: A few years ago in the House, I successfully sponsored a change in the criminal procedure affecting those who are mentally disordered and who come before the courts. I welcome the Minister's statement about the need to extend that arrangement to deal with people with mental incapacity. Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if the reporting of his statement led to its being seen purely in terms of a statement about euthanasia?
Day after day, tens of thousands of people in this country—some voluntarily and some professionally—care for those with mental incapacity. The Minister is ensuring a proper code of practice, proper guidelines and a proper framework within which decisions about those people can be properly taken. Can he assure the House that if, as a result of his consultation, a change in the law is seen to be necessary, he will speedily introduce the necessary legislation?

Mr. Hoon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and I pay tribute to his work in this area. I have taken great pains to distinguish the problems of mental incapacity from the issue of euthanasia and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forceful observation. I hope that the result of the

consultation will allow us to clarify the law in this area. Clearly, we must await responses to the wide variety of questions in the Green Paper.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Minister's statement is welcome and covers a considerable number of fields. I suspect that Law Commission reports and other evidence that will result from the consultation will spawn not one Bill but a number of them to deal with separate areas. If that occurs and such legislation is needed, for example, for the protection of carers and people with mental incapacity problems, if I may put it that way, does he agree that such Bills ought to be dealt with by way of a Special Standing Committee whose examination would precede debate in the House?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestions, but, having said it is important to await the results of the consultation before deciding whether a single Bill is necessary, I am in no better position to suggest that a number of Bills might be necessary. My hon. Friend's final observation shows the importance of ensuring that whatever the Government's proposals, they have the widespread support of the House and the wider population. This is a hugely delicate and sensitive area and we shall move forward only when we feel that there is widespread confidence in our decisions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a Member who is totally opposed to euthanasia in any situation, I am grateful to the Minister for his considered and detailed statement and for saying that the Government are totally opposed to euthanasia in any situation. However, he was less than frank about living wills or advance statements. Does he not accept that there are problems in this area, particularly when life-saving treatments may be developed after a person has made such an advance statement? He needs to look at that area with particular care, and so does the House.

Mr. Hoon: There is no need to repeat my and the Government's opposition to euthanasia. I share the hon. Gentleman's views. I recognise, and said as much in the statement, that there are difficulties about advance statements. That is why there is to be such extensive consultation. I specifically made the point about changes in medical technology. After all, such changes are responsible for many of these problems arising. Therefore, it is important to take account of the hon. Gentleman's point as we consult on these proposals.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome the Minister's statement, because the present law leaves many people wide open to exploitation and abuse. I hope that the steps that he has outlined will address that.
I should like to press the Minister on two issues. First, directly because of Government community care policy, a significant number of vulnerable people who live in the community may previously have been in various kinds of institutional care. Has the Minister, in conjunction with his colleagues in the Department of Health, looked at the possibility of updating the guardianship regulations, which date back to, I think, 1959, to bring them into line with the current situation? Secondly, bearing in mind the fact that, through the privatisation of community care, more and more vulnerable people are in the care of private


businesses, has he had the opportunity to look at supervising the financial circumstances of people who are in private care homes? I cast no aspersions on the many private care homes that offer very good care, but sometimes things have gone badly wrong.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his considered observations. Guardianship regulations are not the direct responsibility of my Department, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for such matters, will have heard his comments, and I am sure that he will give them appropriate and careful consideration.
I realise that there are concerns about the circumstances in community homes, which must be investigated from time to time. The Green Paper contains a proposal to give social services enhanced powers to investigate the circumstances in which people, especially the elderly, are kept. I should be grateful if, in due course, my hon. Friend would write to the Department expressing his concerns in greater detail, so that his views can inform our decision making in this area.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his considered exposition of this matter and for his consultation document. The gratitude that I felt when he announced unequivocal opposition to euthanasia was somewhat attenuated when he announced an exploration of living wills and the extension of enduring power of attorney to cover health decisions. Those two measures added together make me uneasy.
The Minister made a comparison between people who are of sound mind, who make a decision whether they will accept medical treatment, and people who are not of sound mind and have made that decision in advance. There is a huge difference. People who decide to consent to or refuse treatment have a specific medical problem of which they are fully aware, and the specific medical treatment and possible outcomes have been explained to them—it is a very specific decision—whereas a living will, by definition, is vastly more general and cannot cover that.
What would happen if two people were in hospital beds side by side, one of whom had made a living will and one of whom had not? A different law would apply to each of them.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. Member's support for the considered view that I set out. The nature of the problems makes it necessary to examine whether there is an argument for legislation on advance statements or for reforming existing powers of attorney. Examining the problem in a considered way allows us to discuss possible legislative solutions. I take on board her point about comparing specific indications with the more general instructions that may be contained in an advance statement. It is important for treatment to reflect the needs and concerns of the individual.
The right hon. Lady's example of two patients side by side in a hospital ward does not necessarily cause me any difficulty. It is right for the doctors or authorities to take account of the specific indications of one patient, whereas

the general intentions of the other patient are a matter of interpretation. That causes no difficulty, because a different approach can be taken according to an individual's particular circumstances. What runs through the Green Paper above all else is our absolute commitment to seeking to give effect to the intentions of an individual. I am sure that the right hon. Member and I agree on that.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The Court of Protection has been doing a very good job with personal injury and accident victims, and I am pleased that we are considering extending its role. Equally, however, it does not come cheap, and there have been arguments in personal injury claims about who is responsible for Court of Protection costs. If there is to be a review, and if it is to go wider and potentially increase legal costs, will he assure the House that the costs of pursuing civil justice will be taken into account in the review, and, specifically, that costs will not be passed on to accident victims?

Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the concern about costs. Anxiety about extending the court's jurisdiction to cover issues of personal welfare, health, property and finance is addressed in the Green Paper. It is important that sufficient resources are available to ensure that decisions can be made in those more sensitive areas, and we are consulting on the matter. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. I think that it is important, however, that we try to establish a single court jurisdiction, not only to cover questions of property and finance but to deal with the wider range of issues affecting particularly the elderly.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister will have noticed the non-partisan way in which Conservative Members have responded to his suggestions on greater protection for people who suffer mental incapacitation. Is he willing to consult and make representations to his colleagues in the Department of Health, so that a similar non-partisan approach is taken to my own private Member's Bill, which will be debated on Friday morning? I hope that my Bill receives a Second Reading—although that seems unlikely—as it proposes providing greater protection for people who suffer acute episodes of mental illness.

Mr. Hoon: Above all else, this is not a party political issue, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations on that matter. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health is in the Chamber, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will be taken into account.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: You, Madam Speaker, know that, a few years ago, I introduced the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill. There was much opposition to it not only outside but inside the House. The House is a conservative body, and it either does not accept changes in the law or takes a long time to make such changes. That has been the House's history. Similarly, people are not yet prepared to accept that individuals require freedom. Does my hon. Friend accept that—although we talk about many types of freedom in the House, and our new Government are prepared to give more freedom to the individual—voluntary euthanasia is the only freedom


that is not available to any individual? However, the Green Paper is a step forward, and I fully support it. I welcome the initiative, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that the Government are prepared to consult on almost every question in the Green Paper, save for the one of euthanasia.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Minister take into account during the consultation period a situation in my constituency in which a family's application for British citizenship was successful, except for one member of the family? Under current rules, that family member was deemed not to be able to understand the British constitution, and was therefore not able to qualify as a British citizen. That is a monstrous situation, and it should be corrected through legislation which the Green Paper will make possible. Will he examine the matter?

Mr. Hoon: I have not heard of that situation, although I shall certainly examine it. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me or to a colleague in the Home Office, I am sure that, between us, we will be able to deal with that important matter.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, which I very much welcome. As a nurse of some 25 years' standing, I believe that the medical profession will be very pleased with some of the Green Paper's proposals. We often get caught up in discussions about quality of life and assisting people to die, but we often forget—among all the legal talk—the issue of the quality of death.
I hope that my hon. Friend receives in the consultations many responses from people who believe that we should not only think about the subject in legal terms but ensure

that people are able to die in the way that they wish and do not have to be assisted by medical people. I know that the public will be pleased to have the issue cleared up.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations. I repeat the point I made a few moments ago. The important principle running through the Green Paper is that we should seek above all else to give effect to the intentions of individuals. Their intentions in relation to how they may choose to die are as important as how they may choose to live their lives.

BILL PRESENTED

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Richard Caborn and Angela Eagle, presented a Bill to make provision for regional development agencies in England; to make provision about the Development Commission and the Urban Regeneration Agency; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 100].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT

That the Council Tax Benefit (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1841) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Doctor Assisted Dying

Mr. Joe Ashton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person who is suffering distress as a result of his terminal illness or incurable physical condition to obtain assistance from a doctor to end his life; and for connected purposes.
It is a rare occasion when the House debates death. I have been here for almost 30 years, and I can remember only two or three previous occasions. At any time, there are 300,000 terminally ill people in this country and there are fewer than 7,000 hospice beds. To give some idea of the size of the problem, 300,000 is roughly the population of Nottingham or Newcastle. It is important that on United Nations Human Rights Day, we take some time to debate the matter.
Those 300,000 people cannot lobby Parliament and they cannot come to our advice bureaux. They will not have a vote in the next election and there is no pressure group. Death will happen to all of us, but we shall not be here to tell others what it is like. It is always left to us to surmise how best we can help the terminally ill, and I am glad that we shall try to do that today.
It is significant that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department made a statement about a Green Paper today, but nothing he said covered my Bill. He made it clear that the Government were against euthanasia. My Bill, however, is not—I repeat not—concerned with euthanasia. The international definition of euthanasia is mercy killing. Under my Bill, nobody will kill anybody. It is important to recognise that distinction. Under my Bill, nobody will take a person's life.
Why am I introducing the Bill at this time? The House will remember that on 28 October, less than six weeks ago, a very brave woman called Annie Lindsell came to the High Court. She was suffering from motor neurone disease and she said that her wish was to live until Christmas. In the event that she could not help herself and because she was terrified of choking to death when there was nobody with her, she asked for her doctor to be given permission from the High Court to administer drugs, even though they would shorten her life.

Mr. David Winnick: A very brave woman.

Mr. Ashton: She was a very brave woman, as my hon. Friend says. She would have been sitting here today if, unfortunately, she had not died two weeks ago.
The Attorney-General was astonished by the case, and he sent his official solicitor to the High Court to say that he could not understand why a patient should have to go to the court to ask for the necessary treatment. The cost of the case, I might add, was £30,000. Annie Lindsell made history. She was a wonderful woman of 47 who had originally expected to live for only three years after contracting motor neurone disease, but who lived for five years. She was determined to try to change history. She may well have done so, because the statement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department may have opened debate on the subject for the first time.
My other reason for introducing the Bill—I do not want to get personal about this, because every family has been through this sort of thing—is that I saw my mother dying over seven years. She had Parkinson's disease. In the last year of her life, she could hardly move. She could not turn over in bed, she could not talk or walk and she could barely eat. She was virtually living the life of a vegetable. I can remember her saying to me, "I'll be glad when my time comes." She said it not once, but quite a few times. My father nursed her as she withered away to four stone. He died first from a heart attack caused by the stress. She then stopped eating and followed him two months later. I decided then that I did not want to go in such circumstances. I have waited a long time to bring the Bill to the House. People should have the right at the end to say, "I want to depart. I've had enough."
The current situation is a doctor's dilemma. Drugs that alleviate pain, such as diamorphine in the case of Annie Lindsell, also shorten life. As the illness gets worse and creates more pain, more drugs have to be administered and the doses come closer to terminating life. Every doctor knows about that double effect.
There is a huge void in the law. When does it become legal to give more drugs to alleviate pain, even though that terminates life? Some doctors will assist patients who say that they want to die with dignity, but there is no law that says that they can. The patient has no legal right to choose and the doctor has no legal right to administer more drugs. Some doctors refuse for ethical or religious reasons. Some will give only enough drugs to alleviate pain, not enough to hasten death. One doctor in the north-east has admitted that he has shortened life, as have others elsewhere. He is being investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the reasons why Annie Lindsell went to court was so that her doctor would be covered.
The religious and ethical issues are very difficult. The British Medical Association decided, without balloting its members, that it did not want a change in the law for the time being. As it stands, the law can lead to unofficial euthanasia, but the patient has no choice—no chance of being given dignity to shorten their life by four or five weeks.
There is obviously a religious aspect to the issue. I have searched through the religious policies on the problem. The Catholic Church—this feeling was particularly strong across America—said:
It is not euthanasia to give a dying person sedatives and analgesics for the alleviation of pain, even though the drugs may deprive the patient of reason or shorten his life.
A famous House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics came out against euthanasia a couple of years ago. However, it said that it
would have a generally permissive approach to the double effect of relieving pain and shortening life.
A social survey in 1996 showed that 82 per cent. of the population supported the measures in the Bill.
Obviously, there must be safeguards against abuse. Two doctors—a general practitioner and a specialist consultant on the illness—would have to sign a permission form. The patient would also have to be diagnosed terminally ill—that would not be available on request. The doctor could refuse, but would have to pass the patient on to another doctor. Every death under the system would be reported to the coroner's office for


checking and investigation. A code of practice would be laid down by the Department of Health, to ensure that the issues were dealt with in an ethical manner. There would be a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment for abusing the system.
The Bill has been tested by some of the leading legal and medical professionals in the country. It would give absolute safeguards to any patient. A patient could cancel their request at any time.
I understand the religious objections. There are bound to be people of deep faith who believe that life should take its course. I respect their faith, but they do not have the right to take away the freedom of someone who does not share that faith. There are many people of different faiths with different beliefs. We are talking about a voluntary act. The Bill would give the right to a voluntary, merciful shortening of life, giving dignity to an inevitable death. I hope that the House will show mercy and approve it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I trust that the House will not feel that there is a lack of compassion on any side of the argument about such a dreadful and painful subject. Many of us have had experiences similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), either directly in our own families or on the periphery of decisions to turn off life-sustaining machines. Therefore, no one should be seen as lacking compassion.
I find it strange that, having explained the present position in law, my hon. Friend suggested that legislation was required. Even in the case that he cited, the House of Lords has made the position quite clear. If a doctor administers medicine to alleviate pain and suffering and that results in the shortening of a person's life—although that does not necessarily happen—it is not euthanasia or murder. Much depends on the intent of the person administering the medicine.
If one considers the argument from a religious point of view, different people will have different attitudes. I understand that a practising Christian will not convince an agnostic or an atheist, but what is the role of the state? How do we govern ourselves and our society?
We have already outlawed capital punishment and said that it is wrong. It is now being proposed that the state should regulate a death industry in another way by passing such legislation. I immediately concede that the motive is entirely different, but we would be legislating on how people should die, and that is a dangerous thing to do. [Interruption.] Hon. Friends around me say that we have a right to die, but I am not sure whether I accept that argument, because rights normally assume duties. What is the duty incumbent on the right to die?
I accept that we shall all face death at one time or another, but have we the right to ask other people to help us die? Have people a duty to help others to die? If there is no such duty—and no one would argue that there is—has an individual the right to say, "Although I do not have a duty to do so, I volunteer to help you to die"? What is the position of a doctor—or anyone else such as an uncle, an aunt or a cousin—volunteering to help someone to die? That right would not relate to a person's status—it would be inherent.
It is significant that the British Medical Association and all the medical societies say that it would be quite wrong for a doctor to seek to assist a person to die. I believe

that they have taken the right attitude. However, there are other arguments. Such debates usually mention the Dutch experiment, which is often portrayed as humane, interesting and special—something that could be adopted if we were properly liberal. Yet in 1990, when the Dutch Attorney-General had an inquiry, he found that of the 3,300 registered deaths by euthanasia, more than 1,000—nearly a third—had not been requested by the patient.
That is the real danger that we enter when people take upon themselves the right to decide for others whether they will live or die. There is a slippery slope and sadly, it concerns not only people who are terminally ill but people who are mentally and physically disabled, and even old people. It also concerns questions such as: who will benefit from auntie's will? Those are the real dangers in such legislation.
Finally, I think that my hon. Friend has missed the developments in palliative care that have taken place. Nowadays there is no need for anybody to die in agony. Developments in medical care have shown that to be the case. The proportion of 5 per cent. has been referred to. That 5 per cent., too, need not die in pain. The evidence is there.
When we listen to my hon. Friend's case, we must put aside our religious and other standpoints and ask ourselves whether we really want the state to decide who will live and who will die—a death industry to decide. Do we want to start on the slippery slope that makes the right to live dependent on the often selfish ideas and indulgences of other individuals? Do we really think it better for people to be put in a position in which they may be under pressure to want to die?
I do not think that we want that sort of society. It is a denial of our human dignity and our ability to face problems and overcome them rather than taking what some would regard as a coward's way out and saying, "Let's put an end to it all." Instead, let us look at ways of ending people's fear.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 234.

Division No. 111]
[4.32 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baker, Norman
Dismore, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Bennett, Andrew F
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunt, Crispin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Body, Sir Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard



Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gorrie, Donald


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colvin, Michael
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian






Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Rendel, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian


Khabra, Piara S
Sawford, Phil


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lock, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McCabe, Steve
Steinberg, Gerry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


McDonnell, John
Townend, John


McWalter, Tony
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Mallaber, Judy
Vis, Dr Rudi


Maxton, John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Merron, Gillian
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Wood, Mike


Öpik, Lembit
Woolas, Phil


Organ, Mrs Diana



Plaskitt, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Sir Raymond
Mr. Joe Ashton and


Rammell, Bill
Dr. Jenny Tonge.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Collins, Tim


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Connarty, Michael


Amess, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Crausby, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dalyell, Tarn


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Darvill, Keith


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Benton, Joe
Drew, David


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Bermingham, Gerald
Duncan Smith, Iain


Best, Harold
Edwards, Huw


Blackman, Liz
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Boateng, Paul
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fearn, Ronnie


Brady, Graham
Flight, Howard


Brand, Dr Peter
Forsythe, Clifford


Brazier, Julian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fox, Dr Liam


Browne, Desmond
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Galloway, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gapes, Mike


Burnett, John
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gray, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Green, Damian


Canavan, Dennis
Grieve, Dominic


Casale, Roger
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cash, William
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hanson, David



Hayes, John 


Chaytor, David
Heald, Oliver


Church, Ms Judith
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hepburn, Stephen





Hill, Keith
Page, Richard


Hinchliffe, David
Paice, James


Home Robertson, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Pollard, Kerry


Hunter, Andrew
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Prior, David


Iddon, Dr Brian
Randall, John


Ingram, Adam
Rapson, Syd


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roy, Frank


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
St Aubyn, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sayeed, Jonathan


Keetch, Paul
Shaw, Jonathan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Key, Robert
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kidney, David
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Soames, Nicholas


Letwin, Oliver
Spellar, John


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spring, Richard


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stunell, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Loughton, Tim
Swayne, Desmond


Luff, Peter
Swinney, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Syms, Robert


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McDonagh, Siobhain
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


McFall, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mclntosh, Miss Anne
Thompson, William


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Timms, Stephen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tipping, Paddy


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Touhig, Don


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


McNamara, Kevin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


McNulty, Tony
Tyler, Paul


MacShane, Denis
Vaz, Keith


Madel, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walter, Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wareing, Robert N


Martlew, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Watts, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Webb, Steve



Wells, Bowen


Meale, Alan



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Welsh, Andrew


Miller, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Moffatt, Laura
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Woodward, Shaun


Nicholls, Patrick



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Hara, Eddie
Miss Ann Widdecombe and


Olner, Bill
Mr. Jim Dobbin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance. Last night in the Aye Lobby the roof began to leak. It leaked through the electric lighting apparatus, thus causing the common risk found in industrial premises where electricity is mixed with water: the risk of fire. Anyone who knows anything about industrial safety knows how dangerous that is.
I have experienced that in a building, so I know what the smell, the flash and the fear are like; the incident has lived with me ever since it occurred 20 years ago. Last night in the Lobby, that began to happen and we began to smell burning rubber. The doors were locked, and there was no way in which the Department of the Serjeant at Arms could conduct the necessary investigation or take the necessary steps.
Would not it be a good idea, in such instances, if the procedures of the House allowed for a short break in proceedings so that the safety, fire and other authorities could make proper investigations?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In support of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I should like to say that this is not the first time that that roof leak has taken place. It has taken place at least once, if not twice before. The authorities of the House should put the matter right. It is intolerable that we should be subjected to this experience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Last night's incident involving a small flood above the ceiling of the Aye Lobby has been reported to me. I understand that, although water entered the electric light fitting, causing some smoke, fumes and shorting, there was no risk to hon. Members during the Division. The fitting was isolated and has now been repaired.

Mr. John Swinney: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a day on which it has been made clear that the Opposition will support the Government on child benefit for lone parents, would it be

appropriate for Madam Speaker and yourself to consider allocating the role of official Opposition to another party that is prepared truly to oppose the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is entirely at the Chair's discretion who is called to speak and in what order.

Mr. John Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the assurance that you gave the House in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), but are you aware—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order.

Mr. Austin: It is a separate matter. You said that the situation was safe, but were you aware that the London fire brigade was denied access to the Lobby after it had been summoned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of that detail. If that is the case, I am sure that the matter will be noted.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the point of order raised by the Liberal Democrat Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] He is a Scottish Nationalist, I am sorry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order, and there is no need to return to it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us who are rather keen on International Development questions were disturbed today that there was so much noise in the last 10 minutes coming from hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They seemed to think that they were at a Liberal Democrat tea or coffee morning. It was impossible to hear Ministers' answers or supplementary questions for 10 minutes before Prime Minister's questions. Could some attention be paid by the Chair to keeping Liberal Democrat Members quiet and sending them to their coffee mornings, if that is where they prefer to be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that Madam Speaker made some remarks about the amount of noise in the Chamber today. I hope very much that hon. Members will heed those remarks.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 1 to 3; Clauses 9 to 12; Clauses 18 and 19; Clauses 4 to 8; Schedule 1; Clause 13; Clause 77; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 14 and 15; Schedule 4; Clauses 16 and 17; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 to 22; Clause 35; Clause 23; Clause 59; Clauses 24 to 34; Clauses 36 and 37; Clauses 39 to 58; Clauses 60 to 69; Clause 38; Clause 73; Clauses 70 to 72; Clauses 74 to 76; Clauses 78 to 80; Schedules 6 and 7; Clause 81.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

New clause 1

CHILD BENEFIT FOR LONE PARENTS

'(1) The Secretary of State shall prescribe a special rate of child benefit for the first, elder or eldest child in a lone parent family which shall be at least 60 per cent. greater than the standard rate of child benefit for a first, elder or eldest child.

(2) In this section "lone parent" means a parent who—

(a) has no spouse or is not living with his spouse; and
(b) is not living with any other person as his spouse.'.—[Mr. Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 70, page 46, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 47.

Mr. Webb: The new clause has been tabled in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends and also in the name of Labour Members and nationalist Members, whose support we welcome. With it, we shall discuss amendment No. 1, which is also supported across the House.
I should like to take the House back to October 1992. This morning I read through a transcript of the Conservative party conference—something I often do—and I came across a speech by the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). It is a rather famous speech. Shortly after referring to "new age travellers" and to being "sickened" by the sight of "spongers descending like locusts", the right hon. Gentleman said:
I've got a little list
Of benefit offenders who I'll soon be rooting out
And who never would be missed…
And councillors who draw the dole
To run left-wing campaigns…
Young Ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list…
And I haven't even mentioned
All those sponging socialists.
Today, in clause 70 of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman's wishes are fulfilled.
I looked at clause 70 and asked myself what possible justification there could be for cutting benefits for working lone parents. It is important that we get our terminology right at the start of the debate: all lone parents are working lone parents, but only some of them get paid for it. This is a cut from waged lone parents—lone parents on income support do not benefit from lone-parent benefit and they often do not claim it—so clause 70 cuts benefit from working lone parents. What possible justification could there be for doing that?
We heard one justification from the Prime Minister this afternoon: "We needed the cash. The Government were committed to spending plans, so we had to abolish the benefit." Does that claim stand up to scrutiny? Clause 70 will raise £5 million for the Government next year, but I calculated this morning that the Department of Social Security can spend £5 million in 25 minutes. That is the magnitude of the cut—it is a drop in the ocean to the Department of Social Security. Ministers cannot be talking about the Department needing £5 million when it has a budget of £100,000 million, so what are they talking about?
Perhaps Ministers they are talking about the sister measure as well, which cuts benefit for lone parents who are at home bringing up their children. If so, and together with the savings derived through clause 70, the saving next year would be £60 million, a worthwhile sum. However, let us consider where else that money might come from. When the Bill was published in July, there was no mention of what was to become in Committee new clause 2—a clause that closed a national insurance loophole. When I asked the Minister in Committee how much that would raise, the answer was "£60 million." The Bill as published in July and the explanatory and financial memorandum contained no mention of that measure. Since July, the Government have found £60 million by closing a loophole, which is the same sum as they will save next year through the benefit cuts. In other words, the Government do not need the money next year, because they have already found it.
What about the year after, when the Government will be taking £140 million from some of the poorest families in the land? Perhaps they need £140 million—but hang on a minute: last week's benefit uprating statement contained a small clause which, although cunningly concealed, was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and which froze employer national insurance thresholds. I tabled a question asking what that would raise and the answer was £125 million every year. Add that to the £60 million I have just mentioned and the Government do not need to make the benefit cut in year two or year three. In other words, it is clear that, when the Government want to find money, there is money to be found.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman may have heard of the resignation this afternoon of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), over this issue. Does he share my suspicion that there are many others in the ministerial team who share the views of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but who have not yet found the courage to speak out?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: we are all aware of hon. Members on both sides of the House


who are highly dissatisfied with the proposals. I hope that, today, they will have the courage of their convictions and support either new clause 1, which offers a specific way of dealing with the problem, or amendment No. 1, which would enable all hon. Members who object to this part of the Bill to express their disapproval—provided that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give us the opportunity to divide on the amendment. I shall argue the case for new clause 1, but I quite understand that it might not offer the right formulation for certain hon. Members, so I hope that we can unite on amendment No. 1.
Clause 70 is not about raising money—the money is there to be found. Why else has it been introduced? Perhaps it is because the Government are doing good things through the new deal. In other words, it is all right to cut benefits, because they are doing something good in respect of incentives—but what are the Government doing this afternoon? Her Majesty's Government are taking cash from working lone parents—waged lone parents.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that lone parents in work are, on average, £50 a week better off?

Mr. Webb: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall demonstrate why a lone parent who is currently unwaged cannot expect to be, on average, £50 a week better off.
Is the measure a good incentive to help lone parents move off welfare into work—the Government's stated objective? What does the measure do? A new lone parent who claims one-parent benefit next year will have £5.65 a week taken from her or him. Even a lone parent with a very young child would be £5.65 worse off.
It is worse if that lone parent has a low-paid job, because he or she will be nearly £10 a week worse off next year. How is that a good incentive? It gets worse, because the measure runs counter to the spirit of the new deal. Suppose one is a lone parent on income support and one does what the Government want. One gets the letter about the new deal and, next April, goes along to one's adviser. That parent may say, "Yes, of course I'll look at a job." Suppose such a person takes a job but it does not work out. We have all had experience of that. Perhaps the job does not work out because it is available only on a short-term contract, as so many jobs are for the unemployed, or perhaps the arrangements for child care break down. What happens then? The lone parent will go back on income support but, instead of receiving the £84 a week that she got before, she will receive £78 a week. She knows that now, so why would she take a job? That proves that the measure runs counter to the idea of welfare to work.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a most persuasive case. He must be embarrassed even to be associated in any shape or form with such a measure. Will he have the courage of his convictions and urge the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to come off the Cabinet Sub-Committee and make a real gesture against the measure?

Mr. Webb: I am afraid that it is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I am in any sense associated with the measure, given that I am one of the

few hon. Members who has systematically voted against it, unlike the Conservative Members who abstained in Committee.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should like to return to the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman was making before that trivial intervention from the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Does he accept that, should the legislation be passed, an acute problem will arise in rural areas, often tourist areas, where work is available in the summer but not in the winter? If lone parents do not take the work available in the summer, they will be penalised, but if they then lose that work, they will receive a lower level of benefit. Is that not totally unacceptable?

Mr. Webb: The right hon. Gentleman has given a good example of the type of short-term, seasonal or contract work that, if taken by lone parents currently on benefits, will result in disincentives, should the Bill go through as it is.
We could be reassured about the incentives if we were guaranteed that the new deal will be a triumph and if hundreds of thousands of lone mothers and lone fathers who wanted to work were helped into it. My hon. Friends and I have looked at the pilot schemes on the new deal and I tabled two questions about them. First, I asked what proportion of lone parents on income support with school-age children came off benefit in a typical three-month period. The answer was just over 9 per cent. I then asked What proportion of lone parents on the new deal pilot scheme had come off income support in the first three months of its operation. The answer was just over 9 per cent.
It may be—I hope that it is—that, in the fulness of time, the measures are beneficial, but there is very little evidence so far to support that idea, and certainly not enough to publish a consultation document reporting the triumph of that scheme. It is clear that the measure has not been introduced because the Government need the money or because it offers incentives—clause 70 self-evidently fails to offer any incentives.
Perhaps we could get away with it by saying that the proposals will affect new claimants only. How does one get to be a new claimant? One gets divorced; becomes a widow; or has a baby. All of those changes in life are stressful and that is just the time when one does not want to be worrying about money. Next year, those people will get less money than they would receive this year. It is not just next year's claimants who will lose out; that is a myth. Every lone parent has suffered a real cut in benefit because the lone-parent premium and the one-parent benefit have been frozen year after year. In 1996–97, one-parent benefit was £6.30 a week. If it had been uprated in line with inflation it would now be £6.70, but it is £5.65. That is more than £1 less. Existing lone parents, and not just new claimants, are having their benefits cut.
On the "Today" programme this morning, the Secretary of State said that she did not want lone parents living in poverty on income support, but those who stay on income support will be pushed deeper into poverty.
It seems that lone parents do not need the money. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) said, working lone parents are £50 better


off, so what is a fiver among friends? I asked a few question about that figure of £50. It is based on a sample of 375 lone parents receiving family credit. The statisticians said that if those families were to go out of work and on to income support, on average they would be £50 a week worse off.
5 pm
Fair enough, but those lone parents are not typical lone parents. For a start, they are working. One in three of them are getting maintenance—far more than among unwaged lone parents. Furthermore, 79 per cent. have zero child care costs. How many unwaged lone parents could get their children looked after free if they took a full-time job? Many of the women in the sample have a decent hourly wage. Their average age is 35, which is much higher than the typical age of lone parents on income support. Their typical travel-to-work costs are less than £1 a week, so clearly they are not going into central London. In other words, to find out what a currently unwaged lone parent could get in work, it is no guide to look at working lone parents if they stopped working. The figures do not stack up. The margin is much tighter, and £5 or £6 a week could make the difference.
Many working lone parents are on very low incomes. I received a written answer recently that stated that 200,000 working lone parents and their children are living below the poverty line—below half the national average income. They need the money. The Government do not need the money. The money involved has been found painlessly for years ahead. The cut will hit new claimants at a difficult time, and damage incentives. This afternoon and tonight in the Lobby, there is a choice between opposing an unnecessary cut, or joining the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden in fulfilling his dreams.

Audrey Wise: May I make it clear at the outset that, procedurally, my advice to my hon. Friends who share my views is that it would be sensible this evening to vote for the deletion of clause 70, and that can be accomplished by voting for amendment No. 1? That is the clear way to express what we want to express. It has the procedural disadvantage that that vote will be separated from the debate. Nevertheless, it is by far the best way for those who think like me to proceed. I gather from the silence from the Chair that it will be possible to do that, and that we will not find, when we reach amendment No. 1, that the Chair says that there will be no vote as there has already been one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if the Chair expressed a willingness now to accept a vote on amendment No. 1.

Audrey Wise: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unfortunately, this debate must act as a proxy for a debate on a raft of cuts, some of which have never come before the House. We have never had, and we shall not have an opportunity to vote on them. I very much regret that procedure, because we are dealing with a package. We are facing the abolition of all lone-parent premiums:

for those who are out of work, for those who are at work and—the biggest cut of all—for those who are at work on low pay.
I do not see that as a strategy for encouraging people to go to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was correct when she said that those were disincentives. In a sense, the strict matter on which we are voting today is the biggest disincentive of all, because it affects only those in work. For those out of work, their child benefit is deducted pound for pound from income support. There is no point in answering our criticisms by claiming that the Government want those parents to go to work, because they will still lose £6.05.
We are then told that existing claimants will be protected: they will keep their current rates. The measure applies only to new claimants. I have news for my right hon. Friend: new claimants are people, too. Who are those new claimants likely to be? A new claimant may be an unemployed lone parent who starts a job that subsequently folds. Perhaps child care ends or a child is ill and that mother must take a break from employment to care for her child. When she re-enters the work force, she will be classified as a new claimant and will be on a lower rate.
My right hon. Friend knows that the Social Security Advisory Committee advised that the measure was a disincentive and should not be proceeded with, but the Government rejected that advice. It will be a clear disincentive to people to start risky jobs that may subsequently fold. Lone parents are particularly prone to those sorts of jobs for all sorts of reasons that I need not spell out.
If a lone parent secures a job, she takes with her her full entitlement to child benefit, which has been deducted from her income support. When it springs into life, she will receive £6.05 more than a two-parent family. That acts as an encouragement for lone parents to take a job. My right hon. Friend claims that lone parents who enter the work force will be £50 a week better off than average. I agree entirely with the analysis by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). Even if that figure is correct and lone parents are £50 a week better off, is that such an enormous sum that it should be reduced to £44?
Let us examine that £50. A progress report for the first three months has been issued. It contains a table that suggests that lone parents are better off by £50, £59, £60 or even £95 a week. That is very encouraging information. However, there is an asterisk on that table and, if one refers to the very small print at the bottom of the document, one reads "Before in-work costs". In-work costs add up to quite a lot.
I refer to an analysis conducted by One Plus, a Scottish one-parent organisation, and to an example from Clyde valley. The official table claims that a woman from that area, who has a weekly wage of £102, is £52 a week better off. However, we should consider the facts. That woman has four kids and her in-work costs reduce her gain from full-time work from £52 to £16.01 during school term time. That is because she must pay full housing and council tax costs, she has no free school meals and she must meet travel and child-care costs.
That woman might also have to spend a little more on herself—perhaps she has to go to a job interview. Perhaps she does not want to feel as though she is wearing a label saying, "I'm a poor lone parent". The One Plus analysis does not take into account any expenditure on the parent.


The cuts planned for next year would cut that lone parent's gain by up to £10.15. Even worse, during school holidays and in-service training days, when kids are off, her child care costs rocket to £42 a week. That makes her £25.99 a week worse off in work. When we look beyond the glib analysis and the £50 average, we find that sort of figure and that is not an isolated case.
To cap it all, that lady's job is not permanent. She receives no sick pay and could not pay rent if she were ill because she is not receiving housing benefit now. So she goes to work when she feels ill, which we all know is not a good idea. That is a little sketch of what lies behind those glib averages.
I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who made the uprating statement, why child care is work when it is done by a stranger but not when it is done by the child's mother or father. Any reference to Hansard will show that I did not receive one syllable of an answer. It is a good question. I am a mother of two children. I remember their early years vividly and I would not have been agreeable to farming them out to a stranger. It was not my way. Some people may be able to find excellent child care and may have interesting jobs or jobs for which much has been invested in training. Even if they have a small child, it makes sense for them to go to work. I do not criticise that at all, but I do criticise the attitude that all parents of small children should be willing to work, leaving their children with someone else while they clean offices or fill shelves.
We are told that 50,000 young people will be trained in child care. I have asked a question about their training. There will be different routes. Some people may train through full-time education and have rather more training, but others will train one day a week for "up to" six months. I do not know what "up to" means—how long is a piece of string?—but I do know that that does not guarantee that a young person, who is probably reluctant anyway and does not necessarily have a great affinity with children, will be a good child carer. Why should a mother be willing to leave her children with a half-trained, reluctant young person? The arguments about child care training are not relevant and do not stand up.
It sounds so impressive—the child care disregard in family credit is being increased from £60 to £100. What does that mean? It means that a parent has to be able to spend £100 on child care. Can a woman with a wage of £100 or £110 spend £100 on child care so that it will be disregarded from her family credit? There is not much point anyway because she probably receives full family credit. The disregard increase does not mean a thing to her. I believe that it will benefit about three families per constituency. It is certainly a small number. I welcome such an increase; I am all for it. I am all for any advance, however tiny, but it should not be an excuse for cutting benefit and for not giving people a path out of poverty.
Lone parenthood results mostly from marriage breakdowns. Lone parents are not mostly young, reckless and feckless, but suppose that a mother is young, reckless and feckless: is she going to be a better mother if we make her poorer?
I was contacted by a foster mother who deals with young pregnant teenage girls and young mothers. Her task is to try to help them to bond with the baby and to found a family. The girl may be an emotionally damaged person

who has not been accustomed to love, or she may fall pregnant after being deceived into thinking that she had found love. She can find it with her baby only if she can spend time with that baby. Who are we to say, "Go to work," or, "That is the only way in which a parent should be valued"?

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I realise the enormous pressures on single parents. One in particular in my constituency came to me. She was a woman of the sort that my hon. Friend is talking about. She was under 18 and had had a baby. She wanted to go to technical college because she wanted to train and then to get a job and provide a decent standard of living for her child. Social security and education rules do not allow a 17-year-old mother to receive child care, so she was prevented from going to the college. Should we not consider the needs of lone parents who want to work by providing those child care opportunities, rather than saying to lone parents, "You have to spend your time on benefit for years to come"?

Audrey Wise: Of course we should provide such opportunities. Is that an alternative to providing decent benefit? Actually, we do not have decent benefit. People keep talking about this as though we are asking for an increase. We have not asked for an extra penny. All we have said is, "Please, no Tory cuts." That is a modest demand.
Of course we should allow for educational opportunity and of course parents should be able to take different options according to their circumstances, the number of children they have and the age and health of their children, but not one of them should be made poorer by the loss of existing lone-parent benefit.
What about those who are lone parents because they have escaped from a violent marriage? Many children have been traumatised. Are we going to make special exemptions for them? No, and I should not like it if we did, because I do not believe in singling them out and stigmatising them. I believe in supplying sufficient money. The current benefit is not really sufficient to live on. That is another issue. I ask for a full evaluation of the impact of the cuts on the living standards of the children concerned.
A Christian religious foundation is doing a study of the amount of money that is needed to provide a reasonable standard of living for lone parents. It expects to report in April and has the services of eminent people and nutritionists. It will consider how much it costs to have a proper diet if a parent is pregnant or cares for a child, and how much it costs to feed the child. Why do we not wait until we find out whether there is surplus money in the pockets of lone parents? We are taking fat off them without finding out whether they are already anorexic, so there is no excuse for removing a penny from any lone-parent's benefit. There is no excuse for freezing the lone-parent uprating, never mind removing it.
I am pleased to say that lone parents have not been taken in by the thought that they are going to be all right. They have shown concern for new lone parents—the woman across the road or a sister who might be a lone parent next year after the cut. I have wondered whether I should put a notice in my local paper saying, "If you think that your husband is going to run off with someone across the road, make sure he does it before next June."
Many arguments can be made against the cuts. I have only scratched the surface and I am starting to think that I might be wearing out my welcome in the House because I know that many of my hon. Friends would like to make points. We are speaking for children who are already poor. This society already marginalises children. The Government's proposal not only lacks compassion but is dangerous because, of the children who will get ground down, some will go under, but some will take revenge.
If we want social inclusion—a term that will not be familiar to those about whom we are talking—we should make it possible for children to do what my grandchildren can do: go swimming, watch football and have piano lessons. Do hon. Members realise that it costs £20 for a child to enter for the first piano exam? I know, because my grandsons have just done it. It cost 40 quid for two boys. My little granddaughter performed in a concert. There was the cost of the dress and the dancing lessons, and then it cost the doting parents and grandparents 24 quid to go and watch the concert.
Who can afford to do those things on benefit or low pay with only one income? I challenged my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who made the uprating statement, to tell me whether, when the Government said that all children should be supported by their working parents, that was what he intended. As it stands, "work" must mean full-time work, because there is no way in which one part-time wage will support a family. I was given not a syllable of clarification.
I think we are entitled to say that these measures are not in accord with Labour values. They are not economically necessary, they will not lead to good economic results and they are disastrous as instruments of social policy. I believe that we should vote for the deletion of clause 70.

Mr. Simon Burns: This is a debate that the Government would clearly prefer not to have. I know that the Government Whips have been extremely busy in the past few days; I only hope that it is not because of their activities that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has had to come into the Chamber on crutches this afternoon. The Government would prefer not to have the debate because it shows up what they really are: guilty of the utmost hypocrisy. That is not a word that I use lightly, but it is the only word that can be used to describe the Labour party's action, and the Government's opposition to the new clause and amendment No. 1.
For reasons that I shall explain later, the official Opposition do not support the new clause, but it is worth setting out the history of the proposal in order to put the debate in its proper context and to show the utter hypocrisy of the Government's position. As Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) set about removing positive discrimination in favour of lone parents because the benefit system treated them more favourably than married couples with children. Lone parents are currently eligible for extra child benefit and extra help—the lone-parent premium, which will be abolished on 6 April next year—through income support, the jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax

benefit, to which two-parent families are not entitled. We are discussing tonight whether to cut child benefit for new claimants.

Ms Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman spoke of lone parents' being treated more favourably than two-parent households. Does he or does he not accept that lone parents incur more costs than two-parent households? The premium that he mentioned is not to give them an advantage, but simply to raise them to the same economic level as two-parent households.

Mr. Burns: I believe that problems in the benefit system should be dealt with by means of income-related benefits rather than a blanket benefit that is provided regardless of the financial position of the group concerned.
We do not support the new clause because we have long been in favour of redressing the balance so that the benefit system does not discriminate against two-parent families. I doubt whether Ministers agree with the measure in principle, and—as we have observed in recent hours—they certainly cannot say that it commands the full support of their parliamentary colleagues.
However, I have considerable respect—although I do not agree with their view—for the Labour Back Benchers who have had the courage, consistency and decency to stick by their principles both in opposition and, now, in government. I pay sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), to the parliamentary private secretaries who have put their consciences before their careers and taken the only honourable course, and to all the other Labour Members who feel that it would not be consistent with their position to support their party tonight.
It is notable that the Secretary of State, for so long the self-appointed champion of single mothers, had, before taking office, established a record of supporting increases in benefits for lone parents. I remind hon. Members that, in 1990, she co-wrote a paper for the Institute of Public Policy Research, entitled "The Family Way", in which she urged:
A more efficient means for raising the living standards of parents and children on welfare is a substantial increase in the lone parents' premium".
That is exactly the opposite of what she now proposes. It is interesting to note that the first thing that the author of those words proposes when in office is to cut the very benefit that she believes should be increased to improve the quality of life for lone-parent families.
The right hon. Lady's attachment to her views had not receded six years later, when she was confronted with plans to equalise lone-parent and two-parent benefits. That simple and overdue change to the system was fiercely attacked by her when it was proposed by her predecessor. On 28 November last year, she told the House in unequivocal terms that the measure would impoverish lone parents. She said:
The Secretary of State"—
my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—
says that he is cutting benefits to lone mothers because they are at an advantage compared with married couples. The truth is that they are at a disadvantage. Perhaps he does not realise that when people move from being in a couple to being a lone mother, they become worse, not better, off.


Those were the words of the current Secretary of State just over 12 months ago.
The right hon. Lady told the House then that the measure that was being introduced would have a negative impact on the family. She said:
it is not fair to the families of women who bring up children on their own. They will be worse off.
Her rhetoric against cutting child benefit was unequivocal. She also said that the proposals to cut help to lone parents would
make hundreds of thousands of the poorest children worse off."— [Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
The new clause, which the Secretary of State will oppose today, is designed to stop the very cuts that she said would increase poverty.
Does the Secretary of State now believe differently? Does she think that the measure is pro-family and anti-poverty, or does she, in her heart of hearts, hold the view that she took in opposition when she was seeking votes for the Labour party from as many people as possible, and said that the measure was anti-family and pro-poverty? I fear that we already know the answer, for the soundbite that the Secretary of State uses to justify the measure seems never to have wavered since 1 May. It involves repeating the commitment to keep to the last Government's tight public spending limits. That is the reason cited; but will the Secretary of State tell us unequivocally whether the policy will be reversed when the two-year commitment to prudent public spending ceases? Surely the logic of her arguments leads to the conclusion that the measure will be overturned when those two years are over. Will she give a commitment now to reverse the decision in two years' time? I am more than happy to sit down and allow her to intervene. Will the right hon. Lady intervene? I am afraid that the answer is no. She sits there like a stone. Clearly, the decision will not be reversed when the spending ceiling is reviewed in two years' time. If it is not, the right hon. Lady's repeated arguments are and were bogus.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the main reasons for the resounding defeat of the Conservatives at the polls on 1 May was the scandalous level of child poverty which was brought about by the policies of the previous Government?

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman repeats the argument that was made throughout the country by the right hon. Lady before the election that a cut in lone-parent benefit would continue or increase the poverty of children and lone parents. If that is true, why has the right hon. Lady reversed her argument?
This sorry tale takes another twist that is embarrassing for the Government and a damning indictment of the Labour party which, before the general election, promised anything to anyone to win power. The Secretary of State attacked the measure when it was introduced and promised to reverse it if Labour was elected. On 22 January in an interview with Polly Toynbee of The Independent the right hon. Lady said categorically that she would not implement the cuts that were proposed by the Conservative Government. That interview contained a black and white, categorical commitment not to introduce

those changes, but the Secretary of State has broken that commitment by asking her hon. Friends to vote against the new clause and amendment No. 1.
It would be wrong to single out the Secretary of State for Social Security and not mention her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I assure the House that his hands are not altogether clean on this issue either. As Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman was just as guilty of raising the electorate's expectations. There is no point in the Prime Minister trying to justify his behaviour on the policy with speeches such as the one that he gave on Monday at Stockwell Park school, where he limply said:
We are accused of breaking promises we never made, often by opponents who introduced the very measures they now criticise us for not reversing.
But the right hon. Gentleman did make a promise to lone parents. He went on to say:
Do not let anyone fall for the nonsense that Labour priorities are Tory ones or that we have done just the same as them.
The Prime Minister has done the same as us over lone parents, and he cannot escape from the mess as easily as that because he made the commitment to lone parents that he would not force through the changes. When asked on "The World at One" on BBC Radio 4 in January whether he would stick to the plans to equalise benefit payments, he replied:
No…we believe we can avoid that situation within the existing budgets.
I repeat that he said "within the existing budgets." The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security have both given personal pledges that the cuts would not be introduced. Both are guilty of breaking personal pledges and are condemned by that breach of faith.
Recently I read an extremely interesting article in the Morning Star.[Interruption.] I confess that it is not my usual reading, but I am glad that I read it on that occasion. The article was an extraordinarily honest and straightforward piece by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), in which she wrote about the cuts in child benefit. Apart from the hon. Lady's frank, honest comments, my notice was particularly caught by the last paragraph because it summed up the Government's hypocrisy on the issue. The hon. Lady wrote:
People voted Labour because they believed that there were alternatives. Lone parents took heart from our stance when these matters were debated during last November's budget".
She is speaking about the proposed cuts in lone-parent benefit. She went on:
Labour members spoke passionately against these cuts, aided by a very useful briefing issued by our shadow social security team".
I think that I am right in saying that that team included the Secretary of State, and I must assume that at that time she agreed with the briefing. According to the hon. Member for Maryhill, the briefing stated:
Since One Parent Benefit is not taxed, it helps to bridge the gap between welfare and work. Its abolition will make working lone mothers worse off and will discourage work amongst this group. Lone Parent Premium recognises that lone parents face additional costs in bringing up their children. They do not have a partner's time or income to help with children.
That was Labour's briefing before the election, but it has all been forgotten by the Government who have done a U-turn.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that in reading the left-wing press the hon. Gentleman will learn


something. I want no congratulations from any Tory because the Tory party spent 18 years fostering a climate of opinion that blamed lone parents for all society's ills and it created an attitude in society that greed was good. He should not say such things to me.

Mr. Burns: I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments. I was not seeking, in the nicest possible sense, to congratulate her. I simply respect the consistency, honesty and bravery of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in another left-wing publication, Tribune, last week wrote:
When the Tories first proposed lone parent benefit cuts last year, Labour described them as 'particularly spiteful' and argued that the way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending on benefits to them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and further plunging them into poverty.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Harriet Harman): But—

Mr. Burns: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong: there is no but. The next sentence reads:
That argument was absolutely right then and is absolutely right now.
That is the end of the quotation, and there are no buts or ifs. The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) made an extremely eloquent speech. Also writing in Tribune, she described the Government's U-turn in terms of
a family whose children go shoeless while we pay for a trip to the Bahamas for a rich uncle … impoverishing children is no way toward a fairer Britain".
Those are the views of true Labour rather than new Labour. New Labour made trust the key issue for five weeks during the general election campaign. It spent months before the election telling every special interest group that if its members voted for Labour candidates they would reverse the Conservative Government's policies on lone parents. Many people voted for Labour candidates in good faith because they believed those comments. However, as soon as Labour came to power it U-turned and the expectations that were raised among those electors were cruelly dashed. That trust has been broken. The current rhetoric of Social Security Ministers seeks to avoid this thorny issue and to talk around it. They talk about the "new deal" for lone parents.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I will not.
Ministers are never shy of reminding the House that that project has been awarded more than £2 million from the Treasury. However, by equalising benefits for lone-parent and two-parent families, the Treasury will save about £400 million. The Government will reject the new clause and the Secretary of State will repeat yet again her mantra that her new policy is to help lone mothers to get into work.

Mr. Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman please give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I will not.
Let us examine the reality behind the soundbite. The Yorkshire Post recently carried an interesting editorial on the subject. It stated:
It was all too easy for Labour in Opposition to ridicule Tory attempts to curb benefits for single mothers…However, if the Labour leadership did not realise the vacuity of this argument then, it does now.
The editorial continued:
It would, of course, be asking too much of the Social Security Secretary to present her own policies with any kind of coherence, but her insistence that there is a pent-up demand for work among single parents is not borne out by statistics. Although most single parents do admit to a desire to work, the vast majority say that they do not want to work immediately. This is reflected in the American experience, where the provision of child care has not resulted in a large number of lone parents taking jobs. Also, there appears to be no firm foundation for offering more help to single mothers than to poor married couples.
Let us consider the only real evidence so far available to see whether the Secretary of State's platitudes live up to reality. Eight weeks ago she was busy telling everyone that the results of the pilot schemes for lone parents were very promising. The soundbite was soon exposed for the sham that it was.
The right hon. Lady argued that a promising start had been made, because out of a total of 8,651 lone parents contacted by benefits agencies, 433 had found work. It is arguable that at least 50 per cent. of those 433 people would have found work regardless of whether they had been contacted. She failed to say that the figures showed that, of the 8,651 people contacted, almost 75 per cent.— about 6,500—failed to respond to the letter. Of just over 2,000 who responded, about 1,600 agreed to participate, and 433 found jobs, which is a mere 5 per cent. of the total as opposed to one in five. The right hon. Lady tried to convince the country that one in five lone parents had found work.
A month previously, on the very same day in September on which I was visiting a pilot scheme in Sheffield, the Secretary of State issued what I can only describe as a premature press release, which stated:
Early information on the New Deal for Lone Parents has been very encouraging".
I am not sure how the right hon. Lady defines the phrase "very encouraging", or how she can reach that conclusion coherently.
During the summer, my right hon. Friends and I visited those pilot schemes—courtesy, I gratefully acknowledge, of the right hon. Lady's private office. To my amazement, in Sheffield I was given the data on performance and achievements to date. The information was broken down in great detail. Of a total target population of 2,870, 13 people in the area had found work, which shows that performance and achievement did not live up to the Secretary of State's claims about lone parents in her premature press release that morning, or to the soundbite.
I also find it extraordinary that a point will soon be reached at which we will have to sort out whether there will be compulsion, as there will be for young people and others under the welfare-to-work scheme. Will there be compulsion for lone mothers? The Secretary of State and civil servants in her Department have been in touch with officials from Wisconsin about the Wisconsin project, the success of which is based on compulsion. It would be interesting to know whether Ministers will categorically rule out compulsion. Whenever the right hon. Lady and


the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), have been asked point blank whether they will make the scheme compulsory at a later stage, they have always side-stepped the question by saying that compulsion is not an issue. That is not an answer to the straightforward question, "Will the right hon. Lady, yes or no, in the next two or three years, bring in compulsion for lone mothers"? If she wants to give us a yes or no answer to that question, I will be more than happy to give way to her. Will the right hon. Lady intervene? No, she will not. She disappoints me.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Burns: I shall give way out of a spirit of generosity.

Mr. Cook: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly. I would not question the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in the Chamber, but if he truly despises these measures, as he has said, why does he intend to vote for them?

Mr. Burns: I am awfully sorry, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misunderstanding. I shall explain towards the end of my speech why he has misunderstood. [Interruption.] I have almost come to the end of my speech, and I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question then.
5.45 pm
Ironically, the Government's proposal will provide a major disincentive. In recent weeks, we have seen exposed in the raw the sheer hypocrisy of a Government who were prepared, during the six months leading up to the general election, to go round the country briefing journalists that the previous Government's proposal was totally wrong and that they would not implement it. Once elected, the very same people, including the right hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, abandoned their promises, broke their faith with the people to whom they had made those promises, and in a matter of weeks reintroduced the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.
In answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), we have remained consistent, which is why we shall vote against the new clause. Like those of his hon. Friends who will also not support the Government, we are being consistent. In fairness to the Liberal Democrats, they, too, in their own way, have remained consistent, because they have always opposed the policy. Some of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends have remained true to their principles and beliefs, and are not prepared, despite the arm twisting, to compromise their consciences.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, because I am about to conclude my remarks.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) listening to the debate. I gather that he is an expert on this subject, and that his views and comments are widely respected in the Chamber and in his party.
Long after this debate, when the arguing and the soundbites are over, unlike the Government, those hon. Members who have been consistent and remained true to their beliefs will be able to say that they at least have kept the faith.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened with some interest to the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It takes much more than one speech in opposition to make up for Conservative policies during 18 years in government. All we have heard from the Opposition thus far are hollow words and empty rhetoric. That should come as no surprise. However, I shall also refer in some detail to comments made by Labour Members.
I wonder whether Conservative Members will intervene during my speech or at any time during the debate to refer to their current or previous record on the issue of lone parents. Like many hon. Members, I carried out research before the debate. I had not previously read the Conservative manifestos of 1987 and 1992, or the 1997 manifesto entitled, "You can only be sure with the Conservatives". As far as I could ascertain, those documents did not refer to "lone parents" or "work" in the same sentence or in the same section. Conservative Members may be able to refer to a relevant occasion during the previous three or four general election campaigns when they identified a plan to improve the welfare and opportunities of lone parents, but the issue was not mentioned once in their manifestos.
The 1997 manifesto was entitled, "You can only be sure with the Conservatives". Lone parents have been sure for many years that with the Conservatives opportunities will be lost and futures will be frustrated. The electorate took the opportunity to remove the Conservatives from office, denying them the opportunity—which they would have taken with some enjoyment—to reduce benefit levels for lone parents.
The new Labour Government inherited the previous Administration's spending plans—which may not make all Labour Members happy—but we have absolutely disowned their strategy, moving towards job and child care opportunities.

Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have inherited the previous Administration's spending targets; we have heard that often enough. Why is it that the Secretary of State for Scotland, at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee that the hon. Gentleman and I attended last week, boasted of having greater expenditure to hand—the Chancellor has done the same—whereas the Secretary of State for Social Security is not prepared to move on her proposals? Why does she hold that position when more money is available?

Mr. Murphy: It would be better to ask my ministerial colleagues directly. As the hon. Gentleman said, we both attended that Scottish Grand Committee meeting, at which it was pointed out that there is a new opportunity, and that the Government are trying to redress the previous imbalance. As I said, although we have inherited the spending limits, we have disowned the strategy.
The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Scottish National party, sits on the same Benches as the Liberal Democrats, which brings me to the speech of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). It was a very thought-provoking speech, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues and other hon. Members will have listened carefully to some of the points that he raised. Nevertheless, on the issues of opportunity and equality, it is uncomfortable for me to be lectured, patronised and condescended to by Liberal Democrats. They voted against the windfall levy, and, rather than provide financial opportunities for young and long-term unemployed people, they wanted to protect the profits of the privatised utilities. That was an absolute shame.
Other hon. Members have spoken of their own experiences, and I will attempt to do the same. Before being elected to the House, for more than two years, I was on benefit. Those two years were among the most depressing in my life. I was not seeking a benefit increase; I needed a job. Fortunately, I got that job opportunity. I went on to further education college and university, and then to beat the Conservative candidate in what had formerly been the safest Tory seat in Scotland. Is that not a great example of welfare into work as practised in Scotland?
In supporting the Government's strategy, I want to speak not only about the benefits reductions but about the overall package. We have inherited the previous Government's spending limits, but we have moved on and created a package that is based on job opportunities and child care support. The new deal on job opportunities is based on skills and motivation.
Motivation, however, is a matter not merely of the stick or of the carrot but of the work ethic—which must be imbued not only into those who are unemployed, as I was, but into the Government. The Government must hold a work ethic that entails creating job opportunities and programmes to enhance work and enrich the individual. The work ethic will be supported by opportunities for child care and the kids club network. In Scotland alone, £28 million will be spent on those opportunities.
I say again that we inherited the previous Government's spending plans. I do not take joy in voting for an income reduction for future lone parents.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Murphy: I shall not give way, because I am just concluding my speech. I am on my last sentence. I have also read what you think, and, in recent weeks, I have watched you on television. Therefore, I am well aware of your comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet. I wish to correct him by reminding him that he is addressing the Chair, even in a heated debate.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Murphy: I have already said no. I am sure that you will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: No, he will not.

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend says, "No, he will not", but my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has been participating in it for some weeks.
I support the Government's policy, but, unfortunately, because of our inheritance from the previous Government, there will be an income reduction for some future single parents. However, I support the overall package, which provides opportunities that, some years ago, many of my peers in my further education college and university would have welcomed.

Mr. Wigley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on a very thoughtful speech. I support new clause 1 and amendment No. 1. After our change of Government on 1 May, it is appalling that we are still saddled with such a measure. It was proposed by a Conservative Government, and many people thought that after the general election we would turn our backs on such policies.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) said that he would vote for the whole package and emphasised job opportunities. I am sure that when he was searching for work he was not doing so as a lone parent. I can tell the House that the Government's proposals will make it less likely that lone parents will search for work because if they look for work, find work and then lose it, they will be worse off. The provision will be a positive disincentive to achieving the Government's stated aim.
In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the situation in areas such as mine, where employment is highly seasonal and where it may be possible for a lone parent or others who are unemployed for a good part of the year to succeed in getting work for a few weeks or, at most, a few months in summer. Surely that is something good, if they are able to do so. Now, however, the disincentive will operate. Those people know that, when they return to the unemployment queues, in the autumn or the winter, they will be worse off. That will be the effect of the changes.
Surely the basic problem that we face in considering such a package is the Government's adherence to the Tory spending programme, but if we believe in supporting the most vulnerable people in our society—among whom I include lone parents, and particularly the children of lone parents—we must believe in our wherewithal to raise the necessary taxes.
I should have thought that it would be much more acceptable to those who elected the Government if Ministers were examining ways of raising a little more tax—by higher income tax or national insurance payments—so that we had the revenue for a decent package for the most vulnerable. I should have thought that the House's priority would be to turn our thoughts to the needs of those children. Surely any single parent who is bringing up children on benefits must be in the most difficult financial position.
The strategy is not working and it is counter-productive. In addition, we are penalising some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I feel that that


is an indicator of an approach to society. A few years ago, we had the right hon. Member for somewhere in the Thames valley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wokingham."] Of course, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). How could I forget? The right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales and we well remember when he came to Cardiff and pilloried single mums. That was an indication of his approach to life, his approach to politics and his values. God help us if a Government who kicked out that lot who misgoverned us for 18 years decide to pursue the same approach.
6 pm
This morning, sitting in the No. 44 bus on Battersea Park road, I was tapped on the shoulder by a lady sitting behind me on the top deck. She said, "You will be voting against the Government's proposals tonight, won't you, Mr. Wigley?" I hardly expected to be recognised on the bus, but I was. [HON. MEMBERS: "She works here."] The lady does not work here. What she said was revealing. She said, "I didn't walk the streets canvassing in April to have policies that will take money away from the most vulnerable people in our community imposed by a Labour Government."
I appeal to all Labour Members who have a conscience to act on it tonight and to ensure that the needs of vulnerable people are protected.

Mr. Clive Soley: This issue has caused considerable and understandable concern, and I know that it has not been an easy matter either for members of the Government or for Labour Back Benchers. I believe that lessons have been learnt from the way in which the problem emerged and from the way in which it has been handled. If I did not believe that, I would not be speaking as I am today.
I want to put the issue in a wider context. The cut was proposed by the previous Conservative Government to save money and in response to a moral panic attack in the Conservative party and some elements of the press about single parents. One might think that that was a bit odd as the Conservative party at that time had added to the sum total of single parents on one or two occasions. Considerable hypocrisy was involved.
It is true that the new Government face tough choices because of the situation that we have inherited, but there is a far more important issue involved. I refer to the Government's vision of rebuilding the welfare state in the context of a radically changed economy. It is a fundamental mistake to believe that the welfare state as constructed in 1945 by the then Labour Government has survived the past 18 years. It has not. The Tories ripped it apart and introduced gross inadequacies and contradictions into the system. We can either bail that system out or try to build a new welfare state which is relevant to the modern economy.
We should remember that the 1945 Labour Government, using the models proposed by Keynes and Beveridge—two Liberals—built a welfare state which assumed that there would be full employment for men and that women would stay at home for most if not all of their lives, washing up and looking after the kids. That economy has gone and I hope and believe that it has gone for good.
We have to be very conscious of the fact that we must rebuild a welfare state that is relevant for the modern economy. That means, among other things, getting people back into work; that is crucial. The employment option must be our first priority. That does not mean that there will not be problems, because moving from the position in 1945–50 or the position in 1979, when the Labour party was last in government, to where we would like to be in five or 10 years' time will not be easy.
I accept that this policy issue should not have arisen as it has, but I believe that it is important to see it in the context of the aim to create more employment opportunities and a fairer society.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect. Is he aware that one reason why I cannot support the Government today is that I believe, as do a number of colleagues, that the cut is a wrong, Tory policy? I also fear that other cuts in areas such as disability allowance may be introduced. Tonight should be a warning to the Government, and particularly to the Treasury, that disability benefit should not be taxed or means-tested. Those who are disabled have enough difficulties, even those who receive the upper limit of disability allowance. I believe that, in those circumstances, the Government should take note of our concerns.

Mr. Soley: I believe that the Government have already taken note of that point and I do not think that they need messages in the Lobby tonight. I understand, however, why people feel as they do and I will address that point in due course.
Welfare to work is an idea that has universal support within the Labour party and the labour movement because it is a move back to some form of full employment, but one that recognises the importance of women to the economy. When I hear Liberal Democrats or Conservatives talk about benefit cuts, I feel that they have not addressed the real issue. The issue is not whether this cut is good, bad or indifferent, but how we get from the mess we inherited from the previous Government to where we want to be without in the process hurting people who do not deserve to be hurt. That is the difficult issue.

Mr. David Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the speeches that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and I made in Committee and on Second Reading, we consistently supported welfare to work as being an excellent attempt to give opportunities to young women and others who are lone parents so that they can get back into work? That is entirely consistent with our manifesto, which was fully costed. We would have provided the money for a very similar programme. What we are debating tonight, however, is not welfare to work—on which we all agree—but benefit cuts for those who do not go back to work. On the Government's own figures, that will mean half of all lone parents.

Mr. Soley: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). It became a wish list for more spending on everything; yet the Liberal Democrats complained about


the windfall tax—the biggest way in which we have raised money. Where else were we to get £3 billion? Were the Liberal Democrats going to print the money for us?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that only a tiny fraction of the windfall tax goes to lone parents and that most of the money for lone parents is coming from the lottery. By no stretch of the imagination is that a hard choice.

Mr. Soley: That is precisely the problem that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The movement away from the disaster of the past 18 years into a new and better system requires a range of expenditure to be looked at. A figure of £5 million can be multiplied 10 times, 20 times or 30 times. It would have been more honest if the hon. Gentleman had said that in his speech and then said, "Yes, we want to raise taxes to a greater extent than the Liberal Democrats proposed at the previous election." That at least would have had the virtue of consistency and openness.
If we all accept that welfare to work is a good policy, it is important to see it in the context of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have done in recent weeks. There have been significant moves, not least bringing forward the welfare-to-work package from October to April as a result of the recognition that there was a mismatch in the dates on which the two issues came into play. I look forward to seeing that in action.
I also recognise that there is an important additional factor. I ask my hon. Friends to listen. The Government have accepted the strength of feeling on the issue and the concerns that there could be losers. That is why they have undertaken to keep it under review. In my judgment, there will be potential losers under the current proposals. I fear that they will include those with very young children, those who take the package and then lose their job and go on to welfare and also the more difficult group—identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) in an important and effective speech—containing those who want to be full-time parents and do not want to work in the early years of their children's lives.
We know of those potential losers. However, before anyone, particularly any Opposition Member, says that the Government do not care about families, they should bear it in mind that we now have the first Government not just to set up a social exclusion unit but, more importantly—perhaps this has been undervalued so far—to set up a Cabinet Committee on the needs of the family. The needs of the family cannot be considered without taking into account the needs of children in lone-parent families and others.

Mr. John McDonnell: In view of my hon. Friend's assurances that the Government will keep the issue monitored and in the light of the concerns that he has expressed, may I suggest that he uses his good offices as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party to meet those on the Government Front Bench during the debate and agree on a free vote?

Mr. Soley: I have been using my good offices for some time. The idea that the only way to get out of a difficult

situation is to reverse it is a fundamental mistake. That is the mistake that the Liberal Democrats are making. I had the advantage of warning about this when I was in opposition. When a difficulty emerges, it has to be addressed in a number of different ways if it is to be dealt with effectively without knock-on effects.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am concerned about the Government keeping the matter under review. Governments keep enormous matters under review from time to time. We are concerned about the families that will be disadvantaged, as my hon. Friend has eloquently told the House. We want an undertaking that they will not be disadvantaged in cash terms.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend needs to listen carefully to what I am saying. I am not speaking for the Government. The entire parliamentary Labour party has seen the note that has been sent round saying that the matter will be kept under review. I am not saying anything new on that.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend raises an interesting prospect. Will he have discussions with the Government? It would be nice to have an assurance that none of the cuts will be implemented pending the review and that the results of the review will be brought back to the House so that we can have a vote on the matter.

Mr. Soley: I cannot give that assurance—not least because I am not in a position to do so. However, I am not sure that what my hon. Friend suggests would be the best route, although it is an option that could be considered.

Mr. Frank Cook: What my hon. Friend has said is reassuring to an extent. I believe that a broad review of the whole benefit system is already taking place. It would be common sense to wait for the conclusions of the broad review before introducing any measures. Then we would know more about the package that we were buying.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is not listening to what I am saying. A note has already been circulated to every member of the parliamentary Labour party that the issue will be kept under review. My judgment is that we can move forward because some of the initial concerns have been partly met by bringing forward the welfare-to-work packages. Other concerns still need to be addressed. As I have said, in my judgment there will be some potential losers. I call them potential losers because I am told that the measure may work better than people think. That may be true.
6.15 pm
The review is important. Conservative Members may have been used to reviews that were merely cynical, but we have a different Government now. As we examine the issue over the coming months, we must try to identify the potential losers and find out whether any of them are genuine losers after the measures come into effect in April. If they are, I hope that we shall remain true to our long-term aim of creating greater fairness and ensuring that families and children are given the necessary help to succeed. In many ways, not doing that would run counter to our family policy and our social exclusion policy.
We should all learn the importance in government—we have not been in government for 18 years—of identifying difficult policy decisions well in advance and alerting the parliamentary party and Ministers to those difficulties. That is not an easy lesson, because there are bound to be areas of difficulty when we have been in government for only a short time.
No one should doubt that the pressure brought to bear on the issue has been strongly felt and recorded. That pressure should not cloud our judgment on the long-term aims, objectives and principles that continue to determine the Government's policy. We must keep the issue in the context of the long-term aim of ensuring that the majority of lone parents have the opportunity of paid employment, to build a new welfare state based on a modern economy in which women are truly equal to men and in which parenting by men or women is seen as a vital role in creating a stable and contented society in which children are not damned by poverty. That is the Government's long-term aim. We are not interested in short-term quick fixes or ways of getting out of difficulty that will derail the project.
I believe that the Government have learnt from recent problems and are prepared to review the needs of parents who fall through the net of welfare to work. They should be supported in the Lobby tonight. My hon. Friends should not lose sight of the Government's long-term aims. They should not make the mistake of casting doubt on the Government's intentions and turning an immediate issue into a longer-term problem. We are at the beginning of a project that will be radical and long remembered—a genuine attempt to rebuild a new welfare state fit for an economy that recognises the importance of women. That has always been part of the socialist vision. My message to Labour Members is, "Do not forget that. Do not lose sight of the long-term aim. Keep your heads and be sensible tonight and on every other occasion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) speaks with great authority and meets more important people than I am used to meeting. Having heard the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), I wonder whether it is wise for anyone to listen to me; the hon. Gentleman will obviously go very far, very quickly, whereas I have been here for 33 years and have got nowhere.
The problem is not so complex as some hon. Members think. If the Labour party does not support the new clause, the standing of Parliament and democracy will go down even further. I was proud to come here 33 years ago. Sadly, the standing of Parliament has gone down a great deal since then. I appreciate that Governments have made a mess of many things. The previous Government displayed a lack of understanding of the special problems facing single parents. On the other hand, when the previous Secretary of State for Social Security made the same proposals very sincerely, he did so specifically and clearly. The current Secretary of State said that there was no question whatsoever of the same proposals being implemented by a Labour Government.
In the past few weeks, only five single parents have come to see me about the problem and to express their opinions. I told them in all fairness that the idea was first put forward by the Conservative party and they felt extremely let down. Many of them had voted Labour

because they believed that the Labour party had a totally different attitude from that adopted by my party and that its dogma was based on understanding and good will. They felt that they had been given a clear and specific assurance that a Labour Government would not adopt the same policies as the Conservatives.
In the past week I have received seven phone calls from disabled people. I could give the Ministers their names, addresses and phone numbers. I know that at least five of them voted for the Labour party because they thought that it sincerely cared and was concerned about disabled people. They, too, would probably feel very let down if there were a change of policy which affected them.
In the past five weeks, I have had the pleasure of speaking at three universities. I have not seen such anger among students for a long time. Students believe that they were blatantly and completely misled about student finance. All new students could end up with a debt of about £10,000 at the end of their studies. I predict that there will be a collapse in the number of students at university and some universities may be threatened. [Interruption.] However, that is an issue of policy and, as the Secretary of State rightly says, we are not discussing it tonight. We should be discussing not issues of policy, but the public regard for the House of Commons and political parties.
As hon. Members know, I have had plenty of problems with my own party, but having come from Glasgow and lived in Southend for 17 years, I have a high regard for the integrity, devotion and commitment of the Labour party. As hon. Members are well aware—even if they live in Eastwood, which is a rather more affluent part of Glasgow—although I have fundamental disagreements with the Labour party, it is represented by people of integrity who are respected for being straight and honest. [Interruption.] It is not a laughing matter—I believe that it is true.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is safe to praise them now that they are all dead.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that they are not all dead. If they were, I would be very sad indeed.

Mr. Snape: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in such a serious debate the last thing that Labour Members wish to hear is praise for the Labour party as it used to be from someone who has spent all his political life attacking it?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although I have always attacked Labour policies I have great respect for people who, in all sincerity, say what they believe and fight for it. As he well knows, I have also had a few problems with my own party. I am not trying to score points against Labour—or the Conservatives. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that if Labour Members vote for something that they promised the people they would not do, and thereby impose hardship on individuals, the Labour party may suffer a little but the integrity of politics, Parliament and democracy will suffer far more. I would say the same to any Government. If they promise before an election not to do something and then do it two or three months later when there has been no fundamental change in the economy, they will simply lose respect for our democracy.
I shall not take up much more time as I appreciate that there is more to be said on both sides of the argument, but if a political party makes a promise to people who trust that party, and within three months of coming to office the new Government break that promise, that will simply undermine faith in the Government and the democratic system.
I hope that the Government will not provoke a big political row tonight, with people shouting at each other, but will simply take the matter back for the famous review that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush—who meets all the important people—said would happen. If there is to be a review, the Government should withdraw the proposals and think again. What bothers me is that tonight will be not a victory for the Conservatives—it will certainly not be a victory for single mothers—but simply a defeat for the democracy and integrity that all parties should support.

Mr. Livingstone: I listened with interest to the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and I heard nothing to persuade me to change my mind. I shall vote against the proposal.
I have no doubt that thousands of the votes that I received were from single parents who, given the ferocity of our attacks on the previous Government's proposals, can have been in no doubt that they would be safe in voting for a Labour Government. It sounds too much like a used-car salesman drawing attention to the small print to continue making generalisations about inheriting the Tories' spending limits. Certainly none of the single parents in my constituency would have paid £5 for the Labour manifesto and read the small print and the get-out clauses.
I also have to say to the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party that when the new rules of conduct for Labour Members, which forbade us to vote against the Government in any circumstances, were introduced, we were told that it was part of a package deal and that we would be involved in drawing up policy and be consulted at all stages. We were told that we were turning our backs on the past when one opened the papers and read about a new policy and that we would therefore avoid the damaging splits of the past. What nonsense that has been shown to be. If the leadership are not prepared to honour their side of the deal about honest and open consultation before decisions are made, I do not have the slightest intention of honouring their rules that I should not vote against them.
No Labour Member can be in favour of the policy. When I went with other hon. Members to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, she made it absolutely clear that she was not in favour of it. We are doing it not because we think that it would be good for lone parents or because it will advance our policies, but because we are bound by the outgoing Government's spending limits. No one is absolutely in favour of it.
Rather than turning on single parents, when will the Labour Government start taking on people who are bigger and more powerful than themselves? Why is it that whenever we have to make difficult decisions, they always involve cutting somebody else's standard of

living? The students are next in line. Why are we not prepared to stand up to the hard-faced men and women who have done very well out of the past 18 years and have gone from being well off to being millionaires?
The Guardian poll revealed that rather than the new Labour Government being in tune with the people; they are in a small minority, and the overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to what they propose tonight. We have the vast majority of the public with us. Most people believe that it is time that those who have done so well out of the past 18 years should pay a bit more towards the running and rebuilding of Britain and not let that burden fall on the poorest children in the poorest families.
The argument is all about money. We are talking about £62 million or £65 million out of a Government budget of £300 billion. What nonsense it is. We should be able to cope with this. I accept that the leadership have set their face firmly against any increase in the top rate or the standard rate of tax, but that does not prevent us from asking why higher earners pay no national insurance contributions on their earnings over £50,000 a year. Changing that would enable us to find the money. Why are we putting the burden on the poorest children in the poorest families in Britain?
Many of my colleagues have been seduced by the silken fantasies that have been woven by our Chancellor—the idea that we will be restrained in the first two years, but that in the run-up to the next election when we have more money we shall start spending here, there and everywhere. I must remind the House that all the economic prognoses are now moving towards a difficult mid-term for the Government, and I am not certain that there will be a lot of money available to make life easier in the second half of this Parliament.
We can already see the signs. How are single parents to find jobs when firms throughout Britain are starting to lay off workers because the high interest rate policies that the Chancellor is following make it more and more difficult to export goods? As those policies begin to bite in a year's time, we shall face the real prospect of unemployment figures beginning to turn up again in response to the Government's high interest rate policies.
I see no basis for introducing the changes, and I cannot in any conscience vote for them.

Ms Patricia Hewitt: Will my hon. Friend share with some of his colleagues his reasons for voting with the Government on precisely this issue, on an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, on 22 July? At that stage, when the decision was being made, why did he not share his concern either with his colleagues or with Ministers, who were making what by every account was a difficult decision?

Mr. Livingstone: If my hon. Friend is inviting me to undertake daily trench warfare against the Labour Government, I would be prepared to do it. I was working on the assumption that I would be reluctant to join Opposition parties in any Lobby. We are forced to do that tonight because, despite the fact that we were promised an open consultative Government, all the representations that we have made in private letters to members of the Cabinet, and all our private delegations, have achieved not one jot or tittle of change in the policy. We have been talking to a brick wall.
Today, the spin doctors have been running round the Lobbies and the Lobby correspondents are going on television to say that the Government realise that they have made a great mistake. We are assured that they know that they have made a mistake, but apparently they cannot be seen to give in. Is that what we have come down to? It cannot be a matter of finance, when we are talking about £62 million out of a budget of £300 billion.
I have a horrible feeling that all this is about demonstrating to the international markets that we can be as brutal to the poor as the Government we replaced. I see no other justification for the measure. There has been no convincing argument that it will advance the situation.
6.30 pm
When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) declined to let me pop in and help him to develop his argument, he was telling us about his time on benefit and his search for a job. Is he seriously telling us that he would have found a job more quickly if his benefit had been cut by 10 quid a week? I would be prepared to give way to him now if he would like to expand on that illuminating view.
I shall vote against the cut, and I am prepared to take the consequences. What worries me most is the fact that the people who will really bear the consequences are the people who voted for us in good faith. When we speak to them in the Central Lobby and the place where they are meeting in the House today, we realise that they feel betrayed by the Government. I feel ashamed of what we are doing.

Mr. Swinney: We need to be clear about the basis of the issue that we were talking about. It has been well established for many years that, compared with couples, lone parents face differential costs in bringing up a family. The evidence from the family budget unit, the Policy Studies Unit and the Social Security Advisory Committee all points in that direction.
Until the previous Government reached their agreed protocol, successive Governments had respected that advice. In one of the pieces of information provided by the Library for Members to use in the debate there is a quotation from a publication issued by the National Council for One Parent Families, which illustrates the point:
There is a good rationale for designing a benefit structure for one parent families which takes account of the now quite well established fact that the removal of one adult from the household does not reduce all normal costs proportionately and may add costs which are specifically related to one parenthood".
That information is in the public domain.
The Policy Studies Unit says:
One of the outcomes of this analysis is that the needs of lone parents appear to be at least as great as, or more than, those of couples with children.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, in its advice to the Government, says that there are
insufficient grounds for concluding that a Lone Parent on Income Support is overcompensated financially compared with a couple with children".
In the face of all that evidence, it is bewildering that the Government propose to take the route before the House.
Much of the argument hinges on whether the Government are making the move as an incentive to get people into employment, or as a compulsion. I am sure that

when the Secretary of State speaks, we shall hear all manner of justification for the additional support being put in place to compensate for the draconian cut. We shall hear about welfare to work, child care and the other measures.
None the less, nobody can hide from the fact that there is the strongest hint of compulsion. The Labour Government are accepting some of the rather unpleasant arguments of the previous Administration to the effect that people must be dragooned into employment whatever the cost.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) snatched what I thought would be my best line of the evening when he quoted the song that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) delivered to the Conservative party conference in 1992. If ever there were a set of unpleasant words, it was that litany of abuse of people, some of whom probably are scrounging from the system—we hear complaints about that from our constituents—but among whom we have obscured the genuine cases of hardship experienced by many people, including lone parents, who live in a benefit climate.
I intervened on the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) to comment on the central argument advanced by the Government, of which I am sure we shall hear more tonight. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) also challenged that argument, which is that the Government inherited from the previous Administration spending targets that are somehow sacrosanct.
A week ago, the Secretary of State for Scotland berated me in the Scottish Grand Committee for not being sufficiently enthusiastic about the increases in spending that he was delivering in Scotland as a result of the settlement agreed by the Chancellor. In his pre-Budget statement on 25 November, the Chancellor also talked about additional resources being available.
If we boil the figures down to the sum of money that we were talking about, we see that it is a tiny proportion of the budget at the Government's disposal. Yet the argument is that this Government, alone of all the Governments of the past, will stick to the spending targets of their predecessors in a way that the Conservatives never stuck to the targets of previous Administrations of their own party. Moreover, the idea that the Government have a legitimate argument for adhering to the previous Administration's spending targets has been comprehensively discredited by the Chancellor's statement about the current condition of public finances.
During Prime Minister's questions today, I could hardly hear the exchanges because of Conservative Members behind me shouting, "Trust me, Tony." Much has been made of the issue of trust, and one reason for the demise of the Conservative Administration on 1 May was the public's failure to believe anything that they ever said. The public must now be agonising about what on earth they can believe from the Labour party, as a result of the events that we are witnessing.
The Labour manifesto made bold commitments to people in our society. There was a strong commitment that Labour would not undertake the measure that we are debating now. Let me share with the House some words said before the election by the Secretary of State:
The way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending on benefits for them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and plunging them further into poverty."— [Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 500.]


On 19 February this year, just a handful of weeks before the election, the right hon. Lady said:
Our approach will not be to cut the social security budget by making the poorest poorer."—[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 944.]
When people went to the polling stations on 1 May in what are now the constituencies of Labour Members—this applies to Eastwood, too—they believed that they would no longer be subject to the harassment to which they had been subjected by the Conservative Government.
During the run-up to the election, there was an important conversion on the road to Damascus. The current Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), left the Conservative Benches to join the Labour party. On 19 February 1997—an auspicious day—he said:
Reducing one-parent benefit will again reduce incentives to work.
He also told us:
The freezing of lone-parent benefits is a triumph of harsh moralism over humanity … and … dogma."—[Official Report, 9 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 978–79.]
I absolutely agree with him. However, he has managed to leave the Conservative party when it was in office, go to the Labour party and get back into office an awful lot quicker than any of his former colleagues—and he has not had to change his views or actions. Tonight, when the Under-Secretary votes for the Bill and against the new clauses and amendments, he will rub shoulders with all his former colleagues—as many Labour Members will do—to support the policies of the previous Administration. Surely that cannot be correct.
Earlier today, we heard of the resignation from the Government of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who has earned respect among Scottish Members of Parliament as an individual who carried out his ministerial duties with diligence and integrity. He has demonstrated that integrity by confronting the difficult situation with which he was faced—having to support a policy which, fundamentally, he did not believe he was elected on at the general election.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman, who is making an interesting and fascinating speech, accept that the root problem with this matter is that the proposals are Treasury driven? Why are they Treasury driven? Is it not because Government Members know perfectly well that the Maastricht criteria—[Interruption.] Yes! The Maastricht criteria are the reasons why the Government cannot escape the continuing cascade of public expenditure cuts to comply with the policies set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the single currency issue. Therefore, they stand condemned for going along with the Maastricht criteria, and they know it.

Mr. Swinney: You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am a new hon. Member. I do not know whether any prizes are available to new hon. Members,

but to manage to engage the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in a debate on the Maastricht criteria during a debate on lone-parent benefit is a triumph.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would not have been a very long debate.

Mr. Swinney: Thank you for your helpful advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not try that one again.
I was advancing the argument that many Labour Members must be debating with their souls. We heard a curious explanation from the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party as to why they should be loyal tonight. It did not sound to me to have a lot of substance; we then heard the speech from the hon. Member for Brent, East.
Tonight is a night when the views of the people who voted Labour on 1 May should be taken into account. On 1 May—semantics aside—the people voted for political change. They are not getting political change tonight—they are getting a continuation of the priorities of the previous Government.
I have commented on the Government's response, which has been to talk about child care and welfare to work. Part of their justification has also been that they are to take the Child Support Agency by the scruff of the neck to solve every problem. As a constituency Member dealing with various cases from the CSA, I have absolutely no confidence that the Government will be able to do anything with that agency to make a meaningful impact on this problem.
The hon. Members for Northavon and for Preston (Audrey Wise) have questioned the substance of the Government's argument, "You will be £50 better off under Labour." If any opinion pollster came forward with an opinion sample of 395, predicting enormous benefits for everybody from that sample, he would be laughed out of court. The Government's explanation on that point begs as many questions as it attempts to answer.
Tonight is about the way in which people voted on 1 May. They voted for change and, so far tonight, they are not getting it. I urge all honourable Labour Members who are concerned about this issue to support new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, as we are presiding over a great injustice in the House of Commons.

Ms Hewitt: Seven months ago—like every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I was elected on the basis of the new Labour manifesto. In that manifesto, we promised to give priority to health and education, and that is what the Government are doing. We promised to provide extra help to the poorest elderly people, and that is what we are doing. We promised to reform the shambles of the social security system to enable people to move from welfare to work, and that is what we are doing.
We did not promise to reverse the cut that the previous Government made in lone-parent benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you did."] Opposition Members should consult our manifesto. We did not promise to reverse all the cuts that the Conservatives made; for instance, the cuts in the living standards of millions of elderly people in this country.
We did not make those promises for the simple reason that we knew that, in government—and inheriting the deficit and the public sector debt from the incompetent


Administration we defeated on 1 May—we would not be able to afford to reverse all those cuts. We knew that we would not be able to put right in a matter of months, or even years, everything that needs to be put right in this country. It is nonsense to suggest that millions of people voted for us in the belief that we would wave a magic wand to solve all these problems overnight.
I have no doubt that many of my constituents, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would have liked us to promise more than we did. It was only at the beginning of this year that we were being criticised for not making more promises. We were criticised for not promising to spend billions or to reverse every cut. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is leaving the Chamber, stood and was elected on the same manifesto as every other Labour Member.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend recall that we were elected with the slogans "New Labour, New Britain" and "Things can only get better"? We were not elected on the slogan, "Things can only get better, except for lone parents". I accept that we may not be able to put everything right overnight, but surely we should not penalise the very poorest in society before we make things better for them.

Ms Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend's underlying point—that this debate is fundamentally about children growing up in this country with their life chances blighted. The worst aspect of the Britain that we inherited on 1 May is that, in the 18 years of Conservative Administration, the numbers of children in Britain growing up in poverty more than doubled.
We know that children growing up living with only one of their parents are more likely to be poor, for the obvious rerason that, in almost every case, there is no father at home contributing to their maintenance, and only one in three of fathers not living with their children pay maintenance under that other shambles that we inherited from the Conservatives—the Child Support Act 1991.
It is also the case that children in lone-parent families are more likely to be poor because their mothers are so much less likely than those in two-parent families to be in part-time or full-time work. Much as I should like to accept the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) that the lone parent premium is an effective work incentive, the reality is that we have fewer lone mothers in work than any other country in the European Union.
As I said, children of lone-parent families are more likely to be poor, but, among the totality of children growing up poor in Britain today, there are even more growing up poor with both parents at home than there are with only one parent at home. The Government and the country need a strategy to transform children's life chances, be they in one-parent or in two-parent families. When my hon. Friend spoke of the opportunities denied to children in poor families—the chance to participate in sport, music and social activities and to have the same kind of clothes as the majority of children—she seemed to imply that by reversing the cut that we inherited from the previous Government we could solve the problem.
It is absurd to pretend that any improvement that we can make in the benefits system alone will include those poorest children—I represent many of their families—in the wider opportunities in society in which we want to include them.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that we have not inherited those policies but have chosen to carry them on, and that, because there is an element of choice, we can say no tonight?

Ms Hewitt: The manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I were both elected set out our priorities and said that we would stick to the departmental budget totals that we inherited, and that is precisely what the Government are doing.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why is it not possible for the Government to tax child benefit—a universal, non-means-tested benefit that goes to both the poorest and the richest in the land—at the top rate, and use the money to avoid penalising the very poorest who are in single-parent families?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I intended to make in a couple of minutes, so I shall make it now. The benefits system by itself cannot close the gap between children in the poorest families, whether lone-parent or two-parent, and those in the majority of families. The Government are creating a strategy that uses every possible weapon to transform children's life chances.
One of the policy options recommended by the Commission on Social Justice, of which I was deputy chair—I hope that it is under consideration in the benefits review now taking place—is precisely to tax child benefit for the best-off families, such as the one to which I belong, in which the mother pays top-rate tax on her earnings, so as to free resources to give to the majority of families on average and below-average incomes. I hope that the Government will consider that policy, but it cannot be introduced without a change in legislation.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady has just proposed a change in Government policy. That may be welcome throughout the House, but if it is possible for her to contemplate a policy—taxing child benefit—that is not mentioned in the manifesto, why is it not possible to have a change in policy in order not to penalise the poorest people in the country?

Ms Hewitt: As we have heard, the Government are reviewing the entire benefits system, constructing from the shambles that we inherited a system that will do what is needed in the 21st century. I am simply saying that I hope that they will consider, as part of that review, a radical reform of child benefit to enable significant new resources to go to all children in families with low and average incomes, be they lone-parent or two-parent families.
Even more important are the strategies needed to close the gulf between work-rich and work-poor families that opened up in the 18 years of the previous Administration. That means giving lone mothers, as our new deal will do, the same opportunities to enter part-time or full-time work that mothers in two-parent families now largely take for granted.
Much of this debate casts lone mothers in the role of passive victims, rather than seeing them as they are, certainly in my experience, and not simply as a constituency representative—as women who want to change their lives and who welcome, as many have at my surgery and in my constituency generally, the fact that, at last, we have a Government who are saying that we want to help them, as we want to help other families, to combine earning a living with bringing up children. It is a shame that the constructive Opposition, as they like to dub themselves, are not interested in a strategy to close the gulf between work-poor and work-rich families.
The fact has been completely overlooked so far in the debate that the child may be living with only one parent, but, in most cases, there is a second parent: the non-resident father. Our new deal for unemployed people under 25—and, next year, for the long-term unemployed over 25—will bring into employment, often for the first time, many of the fathers of the children now living in lone-parent families. Combined with fundamental reform of the child support Acts and the Child Support Agency, which is also in train, that new deal will begin to bring into those families the kind of money that is needed to give children decent life chances.
By making work pay, by introducing as we did last week a Bill for a national statutory minimum wage— something which the previous Government destroyed— and by building on family credit, by introducing, as the Chancellor proposes, a working families tax credit, we will support further the children currently in work-poor families and enable parents to transform their own position and that of their children.
I have no doubt whatever that, by the end of the first term of the new Labour Government, children in the poorest families in the country, be they lone-parent or two-parent families, will have seen their life chances transformed. They will be better off after one term of the new Labour Government than they ever were in three terms of the previous Government. In that firm belief, I shall vote against the new clause. I urge my hon. Friends to do the same.

7 pm

Mrs. Jackie Ballard: The speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) made me feel, not for the first time in this Chamber, that this was a little like Alice in Wonderland. In one breath she talked about the shambles of the benefits system inherited from the previous Government and said that it needed urgently reviewing and then in another breath she said that the Labour Government had to keep to that inheritance and implement a cut proposed by a Government whose shambles they so despised. No wonder people out there cannot understand half the things that go on in this place.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister spoke about putting lone parents to work. In the 1950s and 1960s, women fought for the right to work outside the home. They wanted to have choices in their lives. Now, the Secretary of State for Social Security and, apparently, the Prime Minister are saying that to choose to stay at home and bring up children is not a valid choice and that parenting is not work. Therefore, women and their children are to be further driven into poverty and debt, to force them to go to work outside the home.
All hon. Members who are parents know that bringing up children is hard work, and those of us who are single parents know that having sole day-to-day responsibility for a child is even harder work, and is more expensive. There is not a partner to provide free child care or undertake jobs around the house. Millions of women thought on 1 May that not only the face but the heart of Parliament would be different, because more women had been elected. Those women cannot now believe that the person who is supposed to speak for them in the Cabinet is the same person who is defending this mean attack on lone parents and their children.
I wonder how many of the women's groups that the Secretary of State has consulted support her action. We know from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that of the 40 women's groups in Northern Ireland to which he spoke, none of them supported this action. I suspect—we heard from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—that few Labour Members support this action either. Although some of them may vote for it, it must be with heavy hearts and a guilty conscience.
The Government talk repeatedly until we are all fed up about what they inherited from the previous Government. People voted on 1 May for what they hoped would be a change for the better, not for a Tory inheritance written in concrete. The inheritance is not written in concrete. The Tory Government are dead, or so we thought. The Labour Government can choose how to spend the inheritance. They have already chosen to change a number of Tory policies, and the Prime Minister spoke about them this afternoon. They have chosen to change some of the Tory spending priorities in the past seven months. Labour Back Benchers are now being seduced or bullied into the Lobby with promises of a review or a committee, but a review, a social exclusion unit, a Cabinet Committee or a departmental committee will not put shoes on the feet of children. I am sorry that the Secretary of State finds this funny.
To change one's mind is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength, a sign that the Government have listened and a sign to the public that democracy works and that this steamroller of Tory discipline has not been replaced by the Labour steamroller. I cannot believe, and I suspect that millions of other people cannot believe, that people in this place who earn more than £800 a week can vote with a clear conscience to take £5 a week away from the poorest people in our society and their children. There is no economic, moral or political justification for it.

Mr. Snape: Twenty-five years ago, when I was first elected as parliamentary candidate for West Bromwich, East, the area of the black country that I have had the honour to represent since then was regarded as a fairly affluent part of the United Kingdom. Unemployment was 3 or 4 per cent. and British manufacturing industry regarded the black country as its heartland. Before I come to the central point that we are debating, I want to say to some of my hon. Friends that none of them should underestimate the damage that 18 years of Toryism have done to the fundamental nature of British society and to pride and especially working-class pride in areas such as mine.
In the early 1970s, single parents had the option of working or staying at home. For too many of them, that option has not existed for many years. Especially in the


early 1980s, the Tory party's economic policies virtually destroyed our manufacturing base. The work ethic is all too often missing in the various estates that I have the honour to represent, because whole generations have never had the opportunity to work. So anything that the Government can do to bring back the work ethic and working-class pride, I am prepared to support. Having said that, I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this issue has not been well handled.
For single parents to be penalised financially if they go into work and then, through no fault of their own, lose their job is not an outcome that was intended in our manifesto. That aspect of the proposals ought to be reconsidered. It is not fair to penalise those who lose their job through no fault of their own.
There are no benefits to getting old, as some of us can tell the House. One of the drawbacks is that we are apt to lecture our hon. Friends. I hope that I shall not be accused of doing that tonight. I urge caution when the time comes to vote this evening.
I have listened to the speeches of Opposition Members this evening. It is easy for the Liberal Democrats. They are always in favour of greater expenditure. They never have to pick up a bill. They have not been in government in my lifetime and, looking at them, pray heaven they never are. As for the Conservative party, let me say this after 23 years in the House. When the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—what a lousy speech that was—praises my hon. Friends for their courage and consistency, my hon. Friends should dip their handkerchiefs in perfume, because there is a sharp stench of hypocrisy in the Chamber.
I put one point to those of my hon. Friends who are tempted to vote for the new clause, so ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise). If my hon. Friends vote for it, it will not be carried. The Conservatives will see to that. Tomorrow's newspapers will not concentrate on the fate of lone parents. We could write the lead stories in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail ourselves. They will say, "An ashen-faced Tony Blair was left contemplating the smoking wreckage of his party as the left took 40 or 50 Members into the Lobby." The stories will not be about lone-parent families.
Let me say this about the events of the past 18 years. When I knocked on doors in what was until May a marginal constituency, people said to me time after time, "I am not going to vote for you, Peter. I will not vote Labour because you are hopelessly divided." If we demonstrate that we are divided on issues such as this, we do not provide succour and hope to lone-parent families. We merely provide succour and hope to the Conservative party, which was so soundly rejected on 1 May.

Mr. Swinney: Are we to assume from the hon. Gentleman's last remarks that the headlines are more important than the issues? Are we to assume that the Daily Express is more important to him than the lone parents? If that is the case, the Labour Government are in a sorry state.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman may get cheap plaudits from his hon. Friends. They are used to giving

cheap plaudits to their colleagues. They have rarely had quite so many hon. Friends to give them. The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. I said that the story would not be about lone parents and that they would not be helped by the vote tonight. The Government will have their way, whatever happens. What the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to do, as the Liberal Democrat party always does, is to portray themselves as the friend of the oppressed, unless of course there is nothing especially controversial about the legislation. Then they have impeccable tactics. One third of them vote in one Lobby, one third vote in the other and one third stay in their places.

Mr. Swinney: rose—

Mr. Snape: I will not give way again. I have heard enough nonsense from the Liberal Democrat party. In that way, Liberal Democrats can assure everyone that they are on their side, whatever the issue.
We have had not a word from the Liberal Democrats about the benefits budget as a whole. It has been claimed tonight that that this debate is a precursor of debates to come. Are we saying that the benefits budget cannot be touched in future years, but must increase year after year? Some of my hon. Friends shake their heads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has said that there would be a debate on disability living allowance. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who has never been known for his compassion, talked about the disabled. Yet we all know full well that, in the last two or three years of the Conservative Administration, people were actively encouraged to apply for disability living allowance, so as to get them off the unemployment register. Are all those people to receive disability living allowance in future? Is it to be increased or index-linked, as some of my hon. Friends want? Those are the hard choices.
I have one or two words to say to those of my colleagues who came in at the general election and who are passionately and genuinely concerned about the future for lone parents.

Mr. John Hayes: For benefit of the House, would the hon. Gentleman care to repeat and elaborate on his allegation that a significant number of disabled people claiming disability living allowance are not disabled, but are perfectly fit and able-bodied? Will he take this opportunity either to withdraw that allegation, or to confirm and justify it?

Mr. Snape: Many of those people had previously claimed incapacity benefit and were encouraged to switch to disability living allowance. Hon. Members who had any dealings with such people know full well that they were encouraged to do so, and we know why that was— it was so that the outgoing Prime Minister could boast about the falling unemployment figures. That is the simple fact and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a dramatic revelation, he is even sillier than I thought he was when he was first elected.
All of us—including those of my hon. Friends whose names are on the alternatives to the Secretary of State's proposals—worked extremely hard during the election campaign to get a Labour Government elected. I have


heard one or two of my colleagues say that we should never have pledged that we would abide by the outgoing Conservative Government's spending totals, but that is not what they said during the election campaign, and with good reason. Like me, in a marginal seat, they heaved a sigh of relief because they knew that the central weapon in the Conservatives' armoury, which they used to cheat their way to power in 1987 and 1992—saying that voting Labour would mean tax increases—had been neutralised by that single pledge.
Having made our bed, we shall have to sleep in it, especially because voting against the Government tonight will bring no change and no benefit to lone mothers. It will merely give enormous comfort to the Conservatives and to the Liberal Democrats, who have never been known to do anything other than opt out of a hard choice.

Mr. Howard Flight: First, I do not see that the financial arguments in favour of the measure before us tonight stand up. This afternoon, we heard the Prime Minister catalogue hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure that the Government have introduced. Welfare to work and lone parents are related matters, and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was right to say that it is not enough simply to argue the case for staying within the pledged spending levels.
Secondly, the measure does not apply to people who at present receive the benefit, but applies only to future claimants. One is forced to conclude that there is an argument of principle as to why lone parents are to be denied the benefit. It is to put strong pressure on them to go to work and to take up the inducements to work that the Government are introducing.
There seem to be massive contradictions here. It is working parents who will be hit by the measure. If one is a non-working lone parent who is currently on income support, one will receive no benefit from the double child allowance. If one takes a job, but loses that job, one will receive reduced benefit under the new rules. Where is the consistency in saying that, on the one hand, we are taking this measure, which represents a stick to force lone mothers to go back to work, but on the other hand, we are introducing a fiscal structure that, for the great majority, will represent precisely the reverse incentive?

Mr. Bayley: If the measure is such a bad idea, why did the hon. Gentleman's party support it before the election?

Mr. Flight: The position of the Conservative party has been made clear. We do not in principle agree with there being differential rates of benefit as between married people and single people. How to tackle poverty and lone-parent poverty in particular is a broader issue, and there are other ways of doing this. It is a question of principle, not one relating to the drafting of the Bill.
In addition, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative Members will vote with the Government on the new clause, because it would be hypocritical for us to do otherwise, having proposed the principle. I am only pointing out that the way in which the principle has been

set down in the Government's Bill—the Bill before us is not the one that we drafted—does not achieve the Government's stated objective, which is to put strong pressure on new lone mothers to go out to work. As he will also be aware, the arrangements will reduce coverage of people's travel-to-work costs, which is another disincentive, especially for those who live in areas where there is no work close by.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend concede that the principle at stake is one that does not stigmatise individuals in specific categories, but looks at poverty in terms of income rather than in terms of broad and bland categories? That is the difference between the Conservative approach and the Labour approach: it is not that we do not care about the poor, but we want to identify the right people to whom we should pay benefits.

Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for pulling out further the point that I was making. I would add that one also has to see things from the point of view of married couples who are on low incomes. There was great resentment about the way child benefit applied: people saw lone parents receiving what they thought was an unfair benefit. There is a different view of how we deal with the problem of poverty.
My point is that there is massive inconsistency as to the stated objectives and as to the way in which the Bill will work. I trust that the Government will address those inconsistencies in the promised review, otherwise they will not even meet their objective of driving lone mothers back into work.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I first through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appeal to the Opposition not to pay me a compliment tonight? I can get into quite enough trouble with the Whips without any help from anyone else.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) on her excellent speech. I am, very sadly, making a hard choice tonight, because I shall not be supporting the Government. I shall support the family. I believe in the family as an institution, whether it is a single-parent family or a two-parent family. The family gives us our values—it is our rock and the place where we all go for comfort. Throughout my life, I have greatly appreciated the fact that I have a good family, and it is therefore incumbent on me to support the family tonight.
The effects of the Bill, if it goes through tonight, coupled with the cuts that went through in November, mean that hard choices will be imposed on some of the poorest people in the country and their children, all because that is what a Labour Government—the first Labour Government in 18 years—have decided will happen. These are the most disadvantaged families and children in our extremely affluent society. We should not kid ourselves about how those people are managing now—they are living on the margins of society, only just surviving. I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it was R. H. Tawney who described poverty as "someone standing up to their neck in water and a slight wave could drown them". The cuts represent a tidal wave for lone parents.
I should also like to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when she was shadow Secretary of State, when the decision to cut benefits was taken last year. She spoke for us all when she said:
The way to get lone mothers out of poverty and cut spending on benefits for them is not by cutting the amount on which they have to live year by year and plunging them further into poverty."— [Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 500.]
She also accepted that the majority of those who became lone parents were subsequently worse off, not better off. I must ask her what has happened to make her change her mind. How is it that she could argue with such passion and certainty 12 months ago about something that she now denies?
We are told that the cuts are about saving money— about £400 million. It has also been argued that we said in our manifesto that we would stick to the Tories' spending plans. I do not remember taking part in any debate in which we said that we would do that. I do remember reading about it one morning in a newspaper and thinking, "Oh my God. What have we done now?" If we are to be so meticulous about the manifesto and look at every word in it, where did it say that we would cut benefits to lone parents? How many Labour Members can put their hand on their heart and say that when they knocked on any door, addressed any meeting, or appeared on radio or on television, they said, "By the way, the lone parents will be the first to be attacked"? We did not do so, because not in a million years did any of us expect that we would be faced with the choice confronting us now.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), I support the new deal to get those lone parents who want to back into work, because I have survived on benefits as a lone parent. I was also the child of a lone parent, because my father was away in the second world war.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State an important question. It is one that neither she nor her Ministers have answered. I should appreciate a straight answer and not the usual mantra, "This is not an issue at this time," because that simply will not do. Will the new deal eventually become compulsory? If so, it is a piece of social engineering of which Stalin would have been proud. If the new deal becomes compulsory and a woman is unfortunate enough to become widowed, divorced, abandoned, a battered wife, or is a young girl literally left holding the baby, she will not have the choice to look after her children. Those who are wealthy and enjoy a different life style, however, can stay at home with their children. I stayed at home with my children.
The disincentive inherent in the scheme has already been well aired, so I will skip over it, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak. We must have an answer about the element of compulsion. It is all very well if women want to go back to work. That is fine, and it is excellent if affordable child care can be provided. Women must be given the choice. I received a letter that particularly moved me, and I think that that lone parent should speak to the House tonight through me. She wrote:
Whilst I fully appreciate the current moves to assist those parents who wish to return to work, there are also those of us who feel unable to do this because we feel that if the only adult presence in the home is forced into work, many children will be deprived of their only source of stability and security. This can only cause more problems than it will solve.

A parent who has to leave home before the children do each morning cannot also ensure that they will leave for school at the required time
or get there at all.
A parent who does not get in at night until after children have gone out to meet friends cannot ensure that they have done homework, know where their children are … Children do not need curfews—they need a parent with the time and the energy to do his or her job of parenting properly.
Lone parents and their children are already one of the most deprived groups in society, having to function in an economy which is often inflated by two parents working. Moreover, a lone parent is already trying to do a job; the work of two people. Many people, like myself, did not bear children 'out of wedlock' but simply escaped from abusive situations, or indeed, were widowed. As a result, many of us are already suffering from stress, are over-stretched, and struggling. A doctor once informed me that the new generation of anti-depressant drugs … are very expensive … £1 per tablet".
Look at the number of lone parents who end up in psychiatric units because of breakdowns and those who simply give up when the poverty gets too much and their children end up in care.
The Bill, which could make people increasingly impoverished, could create a great burden for the NHS, the social services and the police. The social exclusion unit will have an even more difficult job to do.
I understand that people have different life styles. A woman may have been fortunate enough to have had a good education and professional parents. She may have married a good, supportive husband and, having had children, she may have afforded a nanny or cleaner while pursuing an interesting career. Such a woman, who has never had to worry about money, may simply not understand what other women or single parents have to go through. I do not believe that ignorance should dictate Labour party policy.
Labour Members, especially women Labour Members, have always felt a special responsibility and duty to make the lives of those who are poorer better. "Things can only get better" we all sang on I May, but I must have missed the verse that ran, "excluding lone parents". It defies common sense and decency to support the cuts. I simply do not know why we are making them. I do not know what I am missing. There must be another agenda at work, because I am now receiving letters from people who are fearful about losing disability benefit. We are now reading about the benefits integrity project. It appears to be a hit squad, whose remit is to harass claimants and put them off claiming disability benefit. But disabled people and lone parents voted for us in their thousands on 1 May.
I have been supportive of a number of the Government's initiatives, and I want to mention a few of the good things. We are tackling the mess in which our schools were left. As the Prime Minister said today, there is a lot of good news. I particularly welcomed the White Paper launched by the Secretary of State for Health. We all did a little dance when we heard about our support for the ban on land mines. We have also banned handguns. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has promoted many exciting projects that will come on stream in the future.
I cannot support the Government tonight and I know that many of my colleagues will do so with a heavy heart. Since the summer, I and many others have sought to reverse the proposed cuts. My hon. Friend the Member


for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has spoken about quiet diplomacy. That may have been the practice on her part, but I have gone through every route possible from the parliamentary Labour party to Ministers, and I even discussed my concerns with the Whips. I even removed my name from a critical early-day motion, and I must tell the House that I did so with great difficulty.
Our pleas have not been heard. We have won the argument time and again, but we have been ignored. We have been told over and over again that lone parents in work, on average, will be £50 better off. Today I learnt from the House of Commons Library, not a place known for left-wing rebels, that that £50 gain is based on lone parents currently in work. It states that once travel and child costs are taken into account, lone parents seeking employment will find that the net gain of gaining a job will be reduced to £10. The Government's claims do not add up. The money is available to avoid the cuts.
The Government have lost the argument, but they seem determined to carry on. On 1 May, I said that the people voted for a change because they were sick to the stomach of the sleaze and arrogance displayed by the previous Government. In particular, they were sickened by the stigmatisation and scapegoating of lone parents. There is something rather punitive and cruel about the cuts, and something rather arrogant. Of course they will be approved with the support of the Tories, but they will not go through with mine.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for her speech in defence of the family and single parents. I have no wish to embarrass her, but her speech was a fine one. I also welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I trust that his injuries were due to natural causes.
I want to share with the House my years of experience as a doctor dealing with many young women who have become pregnant and raised families as single parents. They are not by any means a group typical of lone parents; I do not claim that, but they are frequently vilified.
I want to dispel the myth about those women—a myth perpetrated by the bunch of reprobates who call themselves Her Majesty's Opposition, who are all apparently now having £30 dinners, as they are not in their places. When they were in government, they promoted the myth that a reduction in benefits would discourage women from getting pregnant. The women's entitlement to housing has already been eroded; that did not work. Now their income is to be reduced, so why do they become pregnant? It has not been said very often tonight, but I know that in private that is often said.
Some women, in my experience, have never had a proper home or a family. They have never known the love or security of a decent home. I repeat that those women are not typical of lone parents, but they are a big group. Their lives have been spent in a series of unsatisfactory foster homes or residential care.
7.30 pm
I well remember one such patient of mine, who got pregnant at a very early age and, because of ill health,

decided eventually to have a termination of pregnancy. Within a very few months, she was back, pregnant again, and she told me that time that she wanted to keep the baby, because above all she wanted someone to love and someone who would love her—something that she had never experienced, after a lifetime of rejection. Cuts in her benefit would not have deterred her.
Other, older women go on having babies because it gives them a brief respite from poverty and degradation. They may have a partner who abuses them; they may have many partners, but they have babies for the same reason— someone whom they can love and who will love them.
Pregnancy and childbirth give women attention. They may even get a bunch of flowers from the child's father before he disappears into the great blue yonder. I would be encouraged if the Government would hurry up and do something about the Child Support Agency, which has so little success in getting those men to support their partners.
Those mothers get a little attention. It does not last, but it provides a break. They have no concept of the difficulties and responsibilities of parenthood. Threats of a cut in benefit will not deter them; it is all that they have.
Many more of the women whom I saw got pregnant through ignorance and carelessness. Sex education in this country is patchy and woefully inadequate. I have seen many patients in family planning clinics whose first knowledge of how their reproductive system works is gained when they come to the clinic, and many are already pregnant by that time. Cuts will not deter that group, either.
Yes, by all means, let us encourage lone parents to work if they wish, and let us also give them a good education, especially a good sex education, some lessons in human biology and some teaching and experience in parenting. They also need good social services and good child care now, to prevent the same old cycle repeating itself in the next generation.
However, we must not at the same time wield the stick of benefit cuts for those women and children. It is cruel and senseless. I appeal to the Government to consider the quality of mercy for those people—if not for the single mothers, let it be for their children, who need a better standard of living, not a worse one. Only mercy and compassion, and benefits now, will stop those children becoming single parents in their turn, in a few years.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have been asking myself why we are doing what the Government propose. On the radio this morning, John Humphrys asked the Secretary of State whether we are doing it because we have to or because we want to. I was not satisfied with the Secretary of State's reply.
Having reflected deeply on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is no need to do what we are being asked to do. It has been turned into an insane loyalty test, in which my colleagues are being invited to support the Government, when they know in their hearts that what the Government are doing is wrong. That grieves me, because I want the Labour Government to succeed.
Every time that I hear the Minister try to persuade the world outside, it is as though we live in a parallel dimension in the House—as though we do not connect with what people outside are thinking. They think that we


are wrong. The Labour Government think that we are right. We know that the Government are wrong. Nothing will happen. It is an incredible state of affairs. We are told that there are hard choices, but the hardest choice of all is to vote against the Government, even though we know that they are wrong.
I shall focus on just one aspect, as many of my colleagues want to speak. The Bill deals with lone parents in work. Many of the contributions have been about getting lone parents into work. That is not what the Bill does.
In my constituency of Pendle, in north-east Lancashire, we are not work poor—we are cash poor. North-east Lancashire is a low-pay black spot. The area is scarred by poverty pay. There are 3,100 one-parent families in my constituency, many of whom are working and many of whom are living in deep poverty.
The Minister says, and we are invited to believe this as a truth, that a lone parent in work will, on average, be £50 a week better off than one on income support. That assumes that the lone parent is getting family credit. Even the child care disregard, which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) mentioned, is predicated on the assumption that the lone parent in work, in a low-paid job, is getting family credit.
The reality is that in Lancashire, one third of all people who are entitled to family credit do not take it up, for whatever reason. They may be in isolated workplaces, or there may be a non-unionised work force. Thousands of people could be lifted out of poverty by claiming family credit, but they do not do so. They depend on the non-means-tested benefits—the child benefit for lone parents, which is being snatched away from them.
Two out of three people who do not claim family credit but are entitled to it would get at least £10 a week. The average amount unclaimed is £21.80. Such ignorance is expensive. Nationally, 80,000 one-parent families in severe hardship are not claiming family credit.
What is needed is a national minimum wage to help people in work. The tragedy is that this excellent proposal—the National Minimum Wage Bill has now been published—will not kick in until the spring of 1999 at the earliest. We are proposing cuts that will kick in next June, so the cart has been put before the horse.
I am sad about what has happened. I consider myself not as one of the usual suspects, but as someone who desperately wants the Government to succeed. For many of those in the Chamber and outside, this is a defining moment. If people believe that what we are doing is wrong, they should join us in the Lobby and vote against the Government's proposal.

Lorna Fitzsimons: This is an understandably emotional issue. My constituency of Rochdale has one of the highest levels of teenage pregnancy in Europe, so the issue has evoked much emotion not just within the constituency party but among my constituents.
My contribution will be brief. There have been some heated speeches this evening. As one of the younger new Members of Parliament and a woman, I feel that, on my head and on the heads of my female colleagues, has been heaped a lot of responsibility for addressing the position of women in society and what the Labour party has or has not achieved in that regard during six months in government.
I remind the House and the world outside it that those hon. Members who pass through the Government Lobby tonight will do so not because we are naive and unaware of the problems, but because we can only hope and trust that the Government are looking to the bigger picture. That is the reason why my colleagues and I stood as Labour candidates in the general election and supported the election of a Labour Government. Let us be honest: whether we agreed with the decision from the outset or, as one of my colleagues said, woke up and read in The Guardian that Labour Members would have to accept spending pledges that were not our own, we knew that there would be hard choices. We also knew that somebody would have to pay for those choices, perhaps in the form of cuts.
Many of my colleagues have introduced cuts at local government level—albeit with a heavy heart. People like me will pass through the Government Lobby tonight, because we believe that this is a short-term measure that will reap long-term gain by creating a modern economy and liberating from poverty all the children and single parents whom I represent. That outcome will be possible only when constituencies such as Rochdale achieve economic prosperity.
Although £5 on benefit will buy things for the family, in the long term it will not alleviate the poverty trap in which many of my constituents are caught. Two, three and sometimes four generations of single parents live on council estates in my constituency and they are looking for some bold action by the Government. They are waiting for the national child care strategy to kick in. They are looking for success from the new deal for lone parents and for a national minimum wage.
Some of the bravest people who represent the Labour party in local government are single parents. Rochdale has taken the bold step of appointing a poverty committee, which brings together a cross-section of local council representatives to address that problem. The committee is discussing the issue tonight. The committee chair, who is one of the bravest people I know, is a lone parent with eight children. Tonight, she will answer an allegedly awkward question from the Liberal Democrats—who do nothing but ask awkward questions and offer no solutions.
That councillor intends to back the Government because she is aware of the bigger picture and she knows that we must change the way things work. She worked for the Labour party during the general election campaign not because she thought it would be easy—she had her doubts about the spending pledges to which Labour was committed—but because she understood that a Labour Government would acknowledge her existence and her contribution to society. That is a positive, not a negative, point.
That Labour councillor is concentrating on the Government's positive measures, whether it is the family unit, the social exclusion unit or our work on poverty. She knows that those measures represent light at the end of the tunnel; it will not be all continuous grind and poverty. She trusts us to have her best interests, and those of the people whom she represents, at heart. She believes that the Government will change the economic destiny of the majority of people on the Newbold council estate whom she represents.
I shall pass through the Government Lobby tonight not because I do not recognise that there are problems with the revolving door of seasonal work or problems for


young families with children under five—I am not that naive. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I hope that the Government will continually review the measure when it is in place. I hope that they are serious about that pledge. I hope that the Government will do something if the penalties kick in for those in seasonal employment and if there are problems for families with children under five.
If the Government do not stand by their word, many people will find it harder to look to the long term when they are forced to address other difficult issues. It has been difficult to make this speech tonight as a new Member of Parliament when so many eminent colleagues have made wonderful contributions. I ask Ministers to bear it in mind that we are putting a lot of trust in the Government because we believe that they have the nation's long-term agenda at heart. We knew that there would be hard choices, but I hope that we shall learn some lessons from this exercise. We have fallen into this problem and the way in which we have dealt with it has done no one any favours. We must ensure that we are the Government whom my friend the councillor will defend tonight; her trust in us must be well placed. I hope also that the faith that new Members like me will place in the Government when we pass through the Lobby tonight is not misplaced.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I put my name to new clause 1 and to amendment No. 1 because I believe that the proposals that they outline will help to protect the living standards of single-parent families.
The Government's proposals will undoubtedly cut the living standards of some of the most deprived and disadvantaged children in our country. There is abundant evidence of the incidence of poverty among single-parent families. The average income of a single-parent family is only 37 per cent. of that of a two-parent family. Some 53 per cent. of children in one-parent families lack three or more of the basic necessities of life compared with only 24 per cent. of children in two-parent families. Single parents face additional costs in bringing up their children because they have no partner with whom to share child care and no one else to contribute to the family income.
The Government propose to cut benefits for single-parent families by up to £11 per week. I find that incomprehensible and unjustifiable, especially when we are apparently heading for a budget surplus and the economy is reported to be in reasonably good shape. The Government are proposing a measure that the previous Tory Government tried to introduce. We opposed it then and, to be consistent, we should oppose it now. No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us later that we are now in a different situation because the Labour Government propose to improve job opportunities for single parents. I applaud her for that: I give her credit for ensuring that there will be investment in new job opportunities and in childcare facilities to help those single parents who want to work to do so.
The fact of the matter is that, in many areas, the jobs and the childcare facilities do not exist yet—if they do, they are not adequate to deal with demand from single

parents. Some single parents may choose to look after their children themselves rather than put them in the care of another person. If that is their decision—particularly when their children are very young—they should not be penalised for it.
I urge my right hon. Friend to rethink the issue, and I urge as many as possible of my hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 1, which has cross-party support. I honestly believe that it reflects the mood of the country. A poll that appeared in yesterday's edition of The Guardian revealed that the majority of people—a ratio of three to one—believe that the Government have got it wrong.
Today, all Scottish Members received a letter that criticised the Government proposals to cut benefit for single-parent families. The signatories of the letter include Rev. Alexander McDonald, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Cardinal Thomas Winning, Richard Holloway, the Scottish Episcopalian Bishop of Edinburgh, the Young Women's Christian Association Scottish National Council, Save the Children, the Transport and General Workers Union (Scotland) and other organisations that have campaigned consistently for children's rights and the rights of single-parent families in particular.
May I say this to my hon. Friends who have been critical? I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) is here. I saw her on the television not all that long ago, saying that the opposition to the Government proposals was a conspiracy organised by the Socialist Campaign Group. I am sure that Bishop Holloway, Cardinal Winning and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will be surprised to find out that they have been recruited into the Socialist Campaign Group—the Church militant perhaps, but not the Campaign Group.
The letter specifically refers to a statement by the Prime Minister, saying:
if the Labour Government has not raised the living standards of the poorest by the end of its time in office it will have failed.
Therefore, when I go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the Government proposals, I shall be not rebelling against the Prime Minister, but urging him to stand by his commitment and to protect the living standards of some of the poorest and most vulnerable children in our country.

Mr. Paul Goggins: As many hon. Members have said, this is not an easy issue. As a new Member, I am aware that this is the time for clear judgment and to be as honest and as truthful as we can be. I have noticed that truth and honesty seem to have disappeared in the media recently as they have dived down into their usual cynical attitudes.
Today, The Guardian insinuated that the benefits of every lone parent would be cut if the Government were successful in the Division Lobby tonight, as I am sure they will be. That was an absolute lie. It is an outrage to scare lone parents in that way because all lone parents who currently receive the benefit will be protected.
The truth is that I fought the election campaign on a manifesto and supported a programme that said that Labour would stay within its spending limits for the first two years of government. I defy the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) or any other hon. Member


to find any leaflet, magazine or newspaper article that suggests otherwise. That was the platform on which I stood as a candidate.
On the doorsteps, amid many positive messages that I received, some constituents regularly said, "You will not do it. You will spend your way out of it." Standing as a candidate on that platform, my response was, "No, we will not." After 18 years of Tory rule, our approach is to review and to reprioritise our budgets. I also made it clear that it was important that, in reprioritising those budgets, the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country should have the highest priority.

Mr. McDonnell: Can my hon. Friend produce any leaflet, any reference in the Labour manifesto or any leaflet in his constituency or elsewhere, in which we gave a pre-election commitment to cut lone-parent benefits? Can he produce any reference to that in the manifesto?

Mr. Goggins: Having studied these issues and followed them carefully over many years, but particularly in the run-up to the election, I was aware at that time that cuts were built into—

Mr. McDonnell: Can my hon. Friend produce a reference?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The House has been good natured up to now, so let us continue in that manner.

Mr. Alan Duncan: It is a very good question.

Mr. Goggins: It may be a good question and I am attempting to answer it. I was aware that the proposal to cut benefit was built into Tory spending plans. Therefore, when I was campaigning, I knew that that cut was a possible consequence of the campaign. If I win an election on a platform that says that Labour will stay within spending limits, I have to face the question: if we restore this benefit cut what other benefits am I prepared to cut to make up the difference?

Mr. Frank Cook: Does my hon. Friend not realise that we are cutting the benefit? Those who protest against this are not asking for extra money. We seek simply to leave it as it is until the broad-ranging review is concluded. We are not asking for extra money, so we are staying within spending levels.

Mr. Goggins: I am sorry, but my hon. Friends cannot have it both ways. The simple fact is that there is a £400 million commitment here and, if that cut is restored, another cut elsewhere in the budget will have to be found. It is a painful fact for me and for many of my hon. Friends, but it is none the less a fact.
One of the things that has disturbed and sometimes appalled me is the way in which many people outside and in the House have sought to pitch the debate in a particular direction by saying, "You are either on the side of the poor or you are on the side of the Government." That is a false statement. Throughout the debate, we have heard of various initiatives, including the social exclusion unit and the new deal, which is aimed especially at lone

parents, young unemployed people and unemployed people who are disabled, who also aspire to a place in the work force. We have heard about the cuts in value added tax on fuel, the additional payments to pensioners this winter and aspirations to raise educational standards in the poorest communities.
The Prime Minister has said that, if we have not delivered for the poorest, we will have failed. Hon. Members and the country will judge him on that pledge. It is important that we fulfil that pledge, but I am absolutely convinced that, to tackle poverty, we have to encourage employment opportunities, especially among those people who have been excluded over many years from the work force.
A third of all households in Britain that have no one in paid employment are single-parent households. It is not a question of compulsion. We know from research that the majority of lone parents want to work because they know that it will make their families better off, give them more independence and enable them to participate in society. The new deal will deliver on that aspiration.
The truth comes, of course, when hon. Members face their constituents. Many of us have met lone parents in recent weeks. One in particular taught me a great deal. She was very unhappy about the prospect of the cut, but two things emerged from the discussion, which hon. Members should realise. First, she thought that, as an existing claimant, her benefit was going to be cut. She was reassured when I told her that it was not going to be cut.
Secondly, that lone parent goes out to work for £110 a week. It is not a huge salary by any means. It is extremely modest, but she prefers to work rather than to be on benefit. Her problem is that, during school holidays, child care costs her £70 a week. That is her difficulty. We need to produce as soon as possible a child care programme to help her to keep her job, rather than an extra £5 or £6 a week in benefit after she has lost her job.
Many hon. Members have described this as a tough decision. It is the hardest decision that I have had to face in my time as an hon. Member, but it is certainly not the first time that Labour Ministers and a Labour Government have had to face a difficult decision. When lone-parent benefit was first introduced, the Labour Secretary of State for Social Services said:
As in many other areas of our social policy, we have got to face facts and achieve the maximum we can within the resources available."—[Official Report, 20 October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 67.]
Those words were spoken by Barbara Castle and they are as true today as they were in 1975.

8 pm

Mr. Frank Cook: This is a difficult debate, with nightmarish aspects. I shall try to introduce a degree of reality based on my experience as a constituency Member.
In implementing a measure to end entitlement to lone-parent benefit for next year's new claimants, and the preceding abolition of the lone-parent premium on income support, the Government are staking their moral authority on a simple question: can we guarantee real opportunities to all single parents who will be adversely affected by the two cuts?
The number and range of such opportunities is to be extended by the new deal for lone parents. I support that programme, and I do not doubt the Government's


sincerity in promoting it; but, given that the best available figures suggest that the combined losses in entitlement will affect half a million benefit claims in 1998–99 alone, is it cynical to see a triumph of hope over expectation in any contention that every one of those half million will, by way of compensation, be offered a work or child care package?
If it is cynical to suggest that the official unemployment figures exclude a significant number of people who are in reality actively seeking work—heaven knows, the Deputy Prime Minister has made that claim many times, and I am sure he is right—and thus adding to competition for available vacancies, not only was that cynicism shared by nearly all my right hon. Friends in opposition; it is, or should be, shared by them in government, however expedient it might be now to retain the same figures. They would probably agree with me—I hope they would—that the official figure for those unemployed in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees in October this year, 8.5 per cent., understates the size of the task of providing employment opportunity for all who lack it, as does the numerical total of 4,181 for the Stockton, North constituency.
In October, the figure for the Stockton borough as a whole was 7,187, and 1,124 jobcentre vacancies were unfilled. It does not take an Einstein to work out that 6.4 people were chasing each vacancy. In neighbouring Middlesbrough, the situation was even worse: 14.4 people were chasing each registered vacancy. Those are two towns in a grouping of five. Across the old Cleveland boundaries, the figure is 10: across five towns, 10 people are chasing each vacancy. The Bill will increase that figure, but how are we to increase the number of vacancies? The whole proposal is premature and unjustified. We are running away with ourselves. Too much sloppy logic is being applied in an attempt to justify measures that are unwarranted, and, indeed, were previously condemned by senior members of the parliamentary Labour party.
I would not care to gamble on the possibility that, in the four years that the current Parliament has to run from April 1998 onwards, no single parent will approach me and say, "I have lost £5 a week from an extremely tight family budget because of the withdrawal of the lone-parent premium"—or £6 a week because of the withdrawal of lone-parent benefit—and your Government cannot offer me a job that I can do so that I can compensate for that by my own efforts." As I have said, there are 10 people seeking every job.
One must assume from their actions that the Government are prepared to take that gamble—to gamble on the flawless implementation of their new deal programme in all areas, and to gamble on there being no downturn in economic growth. I endorse the programme, and applaud such initiatives as the funding of after-school club places and the introduction of enhanced child care disregards into the family credit regime. However—even leaving aside, for the purposes of my argument, lone parents who quite honourably choose to remain at home with their children; for heaven's sake, some mothers believe that the first five years of their children's growth require the personal attention of at least one parent, lone or otherwise—my support of those programmes cannot blind me to the possibility that the Government's reach

will exceed their grasp, and that I can expect to see far more than one victim of that relative failure at my constituency advice bureaux over the next four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said that potential claimants had come to her surgeries saying that they supported the broad thrust of the measure. I do not know where they get these surgeries from. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 15 years, and I can tell the House that it is no joke: my surgeries are bloody heartbreaking, and I do not want to add to that. My hon. Friend also claimed that we had inherited a shambles created by the Child Support Act 1991. Of course we did, but my hon. Friend failed to remind the House that the parliamentary Labour party trooped through the Lobby in order to enact it—and the person who led us through the Lobby was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is now asking us to trust her on the basis of a review that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, has told us will be continuous.
If we are to have a review, why can we not depend on the review team headed by the Minister for Welfare Reform, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? If we are to have a broad review, why can we not wait for the full package and see what we are going to buy? If we continue at this rate, we shall have to have a review of reviews, and probably another review after that.
What am I to say to the constituents who come to my surgeries? Am Ito say that my faith in the Government's generally good intentions towards lone parents meant that I was prepared to support measures that resulted in their impoverishment? Can I justify such a stance? I am afraid that I cannot. I am a simple individual. That does not mean that I am stupid; it means that I am not convinced by some of the arguments that we have heard this evening.
Other right hon. and hon. Members will face the choice that I must face unless they can guarantee the universal success of the new deal for lone parents—and, in the real world, how can they? In that context, new Labour's rhetoric about hard choices is oddly reminiscent of the old left slogan, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." George Orwell had the best answer to that: he said, "So, show me the omelette." We should look at the omelette.
I do not want to delay the House, although I could continue for another 10 minutes. What we need to do can be summed up in two words—"precisely nothing", at least for the moment. I cannot vote for the new clause, because it suggests a change in the regulations, and I think that we must have time to take stock. We should pause, and take a breath. For that reason, I shall vote for amendment No. 1.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate, which is one of the best that we have had for a long time. Perhaps that is not surprising because there is some cross-party agreement and such debates usually draw the best from hon. Members. Two arguments need some further review. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) comprehensively demolished most of the Government's arguments. Since then the issue of the review, about which a couple of Labour Members spoke, has been introduced. Given the importance that


they attach to the review and that, as far as I am aware, no Opposition Member had heard a whisper of such a review until it was mentioned in the debate, I hope that in the new spirit of freedom of information the Government will be prepared to put the paper describing the review, which has apparently just been circulated to Labour Members, in the Library so that we may all see exactly what the Secretary of State proposes. If the document is such an important part of the argument, it should surely be available to all hon. Members.
The second main Government argument is that there is in some sense a choice between welfare to work and lone-parent benefit. I do not accept that, and I do not think that many Labour Members accept it. We have shown that there is money in the budget to reverse the benefit cuts. In addition, we have shown that while welfare to work is welcome—we have consistently welcomed it—even on the Government's figures no more than 50 per cent. of lone parents are expected to get back into long-term work as a result of the welfare-to-work programme. That means that at least 50 per cent. of lone parents will gain nothing from welfare to work but will have all the disadvantages of the lone-parent benefit cut. The two cannot be seen as the two sides of the argument. Lone parents who will gain nothing from welfare to work should be allowed to retain at least the benefits that they currently receive.
I shall not try to demolish the Government's arguments because they have already been comprehensively scattered to the winds. I shall give three positive reasons for Labour Members choosing to vote for amendment No. 1. They have rightly made great play of the importance of keeping their promises. I have already said that we are debating two promises. The first is the Government's promise to stick to the budget that they inherited. They will do that whatever the outcome of the vote. Thanks to the unexpectedly fast fall in unemployment and the measures in the Bill to block loopholes in national insurance, there is enough money in the social security budget to do more than cover the cost of reversing the benefit cut. The Government will keep that promise, so there is no point in using an argument about breaking it to persuade people to retain the cut.
Labour made another promise before the election. It is on record, perhaps not in its manifesto, but it was made by no less a person than the Secretary of State. That promise was to reverse the benefit cut. If the Government want to keep their promises, that is the one that they should consider and I urge them to do that. Hon. Members have spoken about disincentives to work. The Government rightly say that they want to remove such disincentives and give people every opportunity to find work. We support that, but it is quite clear that a benefit cut for new claimants must be a disincentive to work for those who are currently on the higher benefit level. If they get temporary jobs and are later thrown out of work, they will receive lower benefit, and that is clearly a disincentive to finding a job. That is a positive reason for Labour Members who wish to remove such disincentives to vote for amendment No. 1.
We support the Government's emphasis on dealing with social exclusion. They have set up a social exclusion unit. Good for them. They claim that they are trying to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest which under the Tories grew so big. We support that, but how can they reduce that gap by making some of the very poorest even poorer? The Government cannot expect us

to believe that they are intent on reducing social exclusion if they carry out their threat to make some of our poorest people even poorer.
8.15 pm
Labour Members who go through the Government Lobby will be voting with some of the most right-wing Tories in the House who for years have supported the policy of cutting lone-parent benefit. Do those Labour Members think that their friends and families and the people who worked for them before the May election, the members of their party and the constituency committees want them to vote with people such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to damage the interests of lone parents? Is that what people sent Labour Members here to do on 1 May? I challenge them to accept that almost all their constituency supporters support the amendment. They should accept that there are no arguments for voting against the amendment unless the sole intention is to enable the Secretary of State to save face.

Ms Harman: We have had a wide-ranging debate—

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your support and sustenance. As you know, many hon. Members wish to say why they intend to vote in favour of amendment No. 1 and against the legislation. If the Government move a motion that the Question be now put, I hope that you will take cognisance of the fact that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I hope that your arm will not be twisted by the Chief Whip or by any other Government Whip.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows me better than that.

Ms Harman: We have had a wide-ranging debate covering many issues relating to lone parents, and I will take this opportunity to set out the background to our policy and priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), in his thoughtful and important speech, reminded the House that our task is to rebuild the welfare state and to do that around family and work patterns that have greatly changed since the welfare state was founded. Anyone starting to devise a system of support for lone parents and their children would start not just with benefits—if they were concerned about the living standards of lone parents, they would start by devising opportunities for work, for training for work and for child care to support work. They would also look at the responsibility of fathers to continue to pay for their children even if they do not live in the same household.
A modern system of support should start with the opportunities that have been denied to thousands of lone parents because of the previous Government's neglect. It would start with the opportunities that this Government have decided are their priority for lone parents. Our aim is to give lone parents the opportunities that previously they have not had. Anyone starting out to devise a system of support for lone parents would make it a priority to provide them with the support that they need to take advantage of those opportunities. There would be support for lone parents in taking the opportunity to work, such


as help with job search, and with finding and paying for the right child care. There would be support with training. Anyone devising such a system would start with measures that the Government are already implementing.
The new deal for lone parents, a national child care strategy, extra help with the cost of child care, and a national minimum wage will help lone parents get into work, and will help make work pay. The Government are addressing all the issues raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who moved the amendment.

Mrs. Fyfe: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. Will she explain to me why it is her policy that a lone parent in work who loses her job should be treated as a new lone parent and should have a lesser benefit? What is the logic of that?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of whether our proposals will be a disincentive to lone mothers to take work. I ask her to bear with me, because I shall answer that question. If I do not answer it satisfactorily, I will give way to her again.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I know that she wants to make progress. She has talked about the support that she wants to give lone mothers, especially those who go back to work. All hon. Members welcome that support, but what support will she give lone mothers who have to stay at home either because they feel that their children are too young to leave in the care of others, or because they cannot find a job?

Ms Harman: I shall address that point. The clause deals with the benefits for lone parents who are in work, not the benefits for those not in work.
In my view, in the Government's view and in the view of those who elected us, the failure to invest in opportunity in the past 18 years means that providing opportunities must be our first priority. We are delivering those opportunities. We are offering lone parents a new deal and providing them with what they want, which is the opportunity to work instead of a life devoid of any choice except dependence on benefits.
Most lone parents want to work. They know that that is the only way to improve the living standards of their families and to be able to afford all the things to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) referred. Lone parents want those things for their children, and they know that they can get them by working. But work is about more than money.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend talks about the desire of lone parents to work. Does she recall her own words in her book "The Century Gap", in which she wrote:
As the century gap narrows, it is to be hoped that taking time out of paid employment to care for small children will come to be considered as valuable an occupation as any other in society"?
Does she now reject that argument?

Ms Harman: The hon. Lady will know—

Mr. Burns: Hon. Friend.

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend will know that in that book I also argued that it is important to extend choice so

that lone mothers can have the financial independence that work affords. My hon. Friend will recognise that that theme runs strongly through my book.
Lone mothers say that work is about more than money, although that is important. Work for them means that they do not have to depend on benefits. They can show their children that income is about work rather than benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the work ethic. He said that we should be concerned about estates where people are growing up, generation after generation, never experiencing the world of work. Lone parents in my constituency tell me that they are concerned about their children. They want to work so that they can set an example for their children, and can bring them up to understand that life is about work and not just about claiming benefits. They want the Government to deliver those opportunities, so that they can set that example to their children, and that is what we shall do.

Ann Clwyd: What would my right hon. Friend say to people in my constituency, where there are 1,500 lone parents and 200 jobs advertised at the jobcentre? Where are the jobs to come from?

Ms Harman: Even in areas where jobs are available and where there is a trend for married mothers to go into work, lone mothers get left behind and trapped on benefits. We are trying to ensure equality of opportunity for lone parents to be able to work. Our starting point and our priority for investment is to back them with opportunities to work, whether in part-time or full-time jobs.
Many hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), rightly reminded the House that lone parents are often poor. I have argued in the House for 15 years that lone parents are poor, but I have also argued that it is not lone parenthood of itself that makes them and their children poor: it is the absence of an opportunity to work. While married women have entered the labour market in ever greater numbers, lone mothers, who want to work and most need to work, have been left behind.
The Government are committed to tackling the causes of poverty, not just the symptoms. That means tackling the barriers that lone parents face when they want to get into work. That is what is done in other European countries, where lone mothers are twice as likely to be in work and only half as likely to be dependent on benefits as they are in this country. Lone mothers elsewhere in Europe are better off, because those countries tackle poverty among lone parents and their children by supporting them with opportunities to work and with child care, and that is what we should do, too.

Dr. Lynne Jones: What my right hon. Friend says about opportunities for lone parents in other European countries is undoubtedly true. Is it not also true that the benefits system and sex education in those countries are better? Should we not learn a lesson from that as well?

Ms Harman: I agree with my hon. Friend that sex education is important, but European countries which support lone parents with an impressive, high-quality


Child care infrastructure, and with support to get them into work and help them stay in work, do not necessarily have better benefit systems for lone parents who do not work.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: Work is exceedingly difficult to find in my constituency for people of all ages and of both sexes. If my right hon. Friend must make tough decisions, why does she not recommend the taxing of child benefit paid to those earning in excess of £40,000 per annum?

Ms Harman: I will deal with the issue of choices in spending later in my speech, but I should like now to deal with the specific measures that hon. Members will vote on today.
Clause 70 of the Bill provides power to equalise rates of child benefit for lone parents and couple families. The provision will therefore affect the income only of lone parents who are in work and will not affect the income of lone parents who are not in work. The House has already had opportunities to debate the benefits of lone mothers out of work, and those benefits have been introduced through separate regulations. The lone mothers who are the subject of today's vote are those who are in work or who are considering work.
8.30 pm
Two substantive questions have been asked in this debate, and I should like to answer them. The first is whether lone parents have extra costs in work beyond those faced by couple families. The second question—which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked—is whether the measure will discourage lone parents from taking work. Many hon. Members have asked those questions today.
The answer to the first question is yes, lone parents face extra costs in work beyond those faced by couple families. However, the Government are dealing with those extra costs, because they are child care costs. Access to high-quality affordable child care is crucial if lone parents are to have the same opportunities to work as other families. That is why the we said in our manifesto that we would develop a national child care strategy to help parents balance work and family life. We are making that a reality.
Our national child care strategy will have three parts: meeting parents' demands for accessible, high-quality and affordable child care.
First, on accessibility, the Government have made the biggest ever investment in child care. There will be £300 million from the national lottery and the Exchequer to extend out-of-school child care. The additional 30,000 out-of-school projects represent a 10-fold increase on current provision, and they mean that there will be places for almost a million children. Child care will therefore be available for those children before school if necessary, after school if necessary, and in the school holidays. Moreover, there will be help for the under-fives.
Every parent will have access in their community to out-of-school care for their child. I feel very proud of that achievement, which has come so early in the life of the Government. In 1983, I tabled my first parliamentary question, asking the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, whether she would consider concerns about

a complete lack of after-school clubs preventing parents from being able to balance work and home responsibilities. She wrote that off as rubbish, as did a subsequent Tory Prime Minister. This Labour Government, however, are now delivering on that commitment. We are delivering after-school care in addition to the other measures to which we are committed in helping to improve access to child care.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I do not think that there is a Labour Member in the Chamber who would not and does not welcome the national child care strategy, but will my right hon. Friend explain why we cannot deliver the national child care strategy before pulling away the safety net of benefit support? If we were to do that, our proposals would be coherent in a way in which they currently are not.

Ms Harman: As I shall explain in a moment, help with child care costs and extra child care provision will come on stream at the same time as the benefit changes for lone parents who are in work.
Our action on after-school clubs is in addition to our other measures to help improve access to child care. We will provide a nursery place for every four-year-old in Britain, and we will promote an integrated approach to education, child care and family services in our early excellence centres.
The second strand of the national child care strategy is quality. We have always said that child care should not be about numbers and that the quality of care is vital. We will therefore invest £100 million extra in training nursery and play staff.
The third element is affordability. Clause 70 is about the flat-rate additional allowance of about £6 a week in child benefit. A £6 flat rate does not make sufficient difference for many parents who have to pay the high costs of child care. We have therefore announced extra help with child care costs through the child care disregard for in-work benefits. The disregard will be introduced on the same day as the measure that we are now debating.
The extra help will mean that a lone parent with one or two children can receive up to £95.50 per week towards the cost of child care—almost £40 per week more than is currently available.

Audrey Wise: Does not the disregard mean that to qualify for a £100 disregard a parent must be able to spend £100 on child care? Is it not true that as most of those parents receive maximum family credit, the extra disregard will not make a ha'p'orth of a difference?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has welcomed the extra help through the child care disregard, but says that it does not go far enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] She says that of itself the disregard—although it is an extra contribution to child care costs—is not enough. I agree with her. It is only the first step. The Chancellor has announced that there will be more help with child care costs through the working families tax credit.
The measures focus help where it is needed—on lone parents' child care costs. The measures mean that some lone parents will receive more benefit help in work than they currently receive, and that some lone parents who could never before have contemplated work will now be


able to do so because they will be able to afford child care. Together, our measures amount to a major new child care programme, demonstrating that our priority is to invest in opportunity by giving lone parents the same opportunity to participate fully in society and to support their families through work. It is the best way forward.
Again, my answer to the question whether lone parents have extra costs in work beyond those experienced by couple families is yes, but they are child care costs and we are helping to meet them.
The second question that many hon. Members have raised is whether the measure will discourage lone parents from taking up work. My answer to that is no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members ask why, so I will explain. First, lone parents want to work because they are better off in work than they can be on benefit. Research suggests that the average additional income for lone parents already in work and on family credit is more than £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work income.

Dr. Marek: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a House of Commons Library research paper which disproves the argument that such people will be £50 a week better off? The paper says that they will be £10 better off when child care and travel costs are taken into account. A footnote to the paper says:
Indeed, they would be better off if they stayed on income support and managed to earn £10–£15 per week from a part-time job which did not necessitate child care costs.
Will the right hon. Lady please not use the £50 figure? It is inaccurate and she must get her officials to look into the matter and find the right figures.

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] My hon. Friend rightly reminds the House that the Policy Studies Institute research takes account of the income that lone mothers get in work without taking account of their child care costs. I have pointed out that that research also does not take account of the extra help with child care costs that the Government are giving and will continue to give.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ms Harman: I have given way about nine times. I am confident that I am about to answer the question that my hon. Friend has not asked.
Will the measure discourage lone parents from taking up work? The answer is no. First, lone parents want to work because they know that even if they have part-time work, with family credit they are better off than they can be on benefit. Secondly, lone parents will not be discouraged from taking up work because many lone parents want to work, not just for financial reasons, but because they do not want to be dependent on benefit. The lone mothers in my constituency say to me, "We want to work—we do not want to be dependent on benefit because we want to set an example to our children."

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Ms Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ms Harman: Lone parents want their children to know that work is better than benefit dependency. They want to

provide a positive role so that their children can see that work brings independence and self-esteem. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to whom I will give way, agrees that lone mothers are keen to work and to have opportunities.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been extremely generous in giving way. She argues that the cuts in child benefit will not be a disincentive to lone mothers to work. I draw to her attention the Joseph Rowntree Foundation study, "Making Work Pay", which states:
If lone mothers are pushed into hardship, for example through changes in benefit entitlements … their chances of getting into paid work may be drastically reduced.

Ms Harman: That study was researched before we introduced our proposals. We will implement them. That research does not take account of the extra help we shall give lone mothers with the extra costs of child care.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for her generosity. I am sure that we all agree that most lone parents do want to work if the situation allows them to do so. My right hon. Friend's comments assume, however, that every employer is a nice, kind, generous one who will understand a mother's family problems and will not sack her unreasonably. For the first two years of any employment, people cannot take a case to an industrial tribunal. I know that some of my party colleagues are somewhat distanced from the trade unions these days, but they should realise that not all employers are good ones.

Ms Harman: Lone mothers are well aware, as is everyone else, that the first job one gets does not necessarily prove to be permanent or a job for life. I believe that lone mothers want to work because they are better off and because they want to set an example to their children. They have said clearly that many of them cannot work because they need help and support to find it. They need practical help with finding a job and with finding accessible, affordable child care. The Government will deliver that through the new deal for lone parents and the national child care strategy.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ms Harman: I will press on with my comments because this has been a long debate. I may give way later.
8.45 pm
In consultation with lone parent organisations, we have developed a radical new programme that offers lone parents throughout Britain the opportunity to find work. Lone parents welcome that programme and employers have been offering jobs to lone parents, some of whom have been on benefit for five, 10 or even 20 years. The new deal for lone parents is real welfare reform in action. It is a completely new service which extends opportunities where they never were before.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will she confirm that if a lone parent loses


their job or has to leave it because their child becomes ill, they will get a cut in benefit when they return to that benefit?

Ms Harman: If a lone parent loses her job and goes back to income support, she will get the same rate of benefit for her child as a married couple on the same income.
I have already announced that from next April all lone parents newly claiming income support will be able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new deal. We are not excluding those with young children from those opportunities. As my hon. Friends have asked today, we shall keep all the issues under review. We are investing the best part of £1 million in evaluating the effectiveness of our new deal.
The Liberal Democrats have backed our welfare-to-work proposals, but they opposed the windfall levy which finances them and they oppose any cuts to pay for them. We do not have the luxury that they afford themselves. I remind the House that existing lone parents will continue to receive the higher rate of child benefit.

Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just had a message on my pager which says, "A vote is expected in the next few minutes." May we have an assurance that you will allow the debate to continue? A large number of hon. Members have sat here throughout the debate. I was lucky to be called, but there are many more who wish to speak. May we have an undertaking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I do not possess a pager, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Ms Harman: I remind the House that existing lone parents will continue to receive the higher rate of child benefit. We have built in additional protection for lone parents currently on income support. They will continue to be entitled to claim the lone-parent rate of child benefit when they move into work.

Mr. Swinney: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Ms Harman: I will not give way to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) because I am about to conclude my comments. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mr. Corbyn: She has not seen me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have seen the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Lady is not giving way.

Ms Harman: On the contrary, I certainly had seen my hon. Friend.
Lone parents have told us that they need help to find work and that they need help with child care in work. The Government are providing that. That is why the answer to the second question is that we do not believe

that the benefit changes will deter lone parents from moving into work. Our programme will extend opportunities to lone mothers, who will be better off in work than they could ever have been on any rate of benefit.

Mrs. Mahon: The Secretary of State has been good enough to give way many times and she has answered a couple of questions, but she has not answered mine. If a lone parent chooses not to take part in the new deal because they feel that they need to stay at home with their family, will they be allowed that choice or will the new deal become compulsory?

Ms Harman: There is no intention that the new deal should drive lone mothers with young children out to work. We are doing what we said that we would do in our manifesto, which is to offer opportunities for lone mothers who previously did not have them.
Many Labour Members have raised the issue of what people voted the Government in to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) reminded the House in his thoughtful speech that when we asked people to vote for us earlier this year, we told them that we would tackle poverty and social exclusion. We told them how we would do so, which was by promoting opportunity. We told them also that we believed that work was the best form of welfare for people of working age. We said that we would invest in helping people to move from benefits to work. We said also that we would offer a hand-up, not merely a handout.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) urges us to abandon our manifesto. I say to him that we should not do so. The public clearly want an active approach to welfare so that everyone works for his or her living if that is possible, and that is what we have promised to do.
Under the previous Government there were no substantive measures to help lone parents into work. I criticised the previous Administration for merely proposing benefit cuts and providing no opportunities for lone parents to be better off in work. Without the recent general election and without a Labour Government in office, that would have been the end of the story, but it is not. Our approach is different from that of the previous Government.
Work and opportunity are at the heart of the Government's approach, and that extends to lone parents, who for many years have been invisible in the House except when it came to the opportunity for criticising them. Our manifesto promised to provide help for lone parents in moving into work, and that is what is expected of us. Indeed, that is what we are delivering.
I explained at the outset that the measure on which the House is to vote is about lone parents who are in work or who are considering work. It is not about benefit levels for lone mothers who are out of work. I have addressed the substantive issues and explained the Government's approach in the light of our manifesto promises. I ask the House to reject the amendment and the new clause.

Mr. Webb: After more than four hours of debate, I have no desire to detain the House from dividing. We have heard the Secretary of State's response and my colleagues and I feel that it did not take up the key


question: what is the point of clause 70? The money is not needed; the Government do not need the money, but lone parents do.
The Secretary of State mentioned her challenge to Baroness Thatcher—then Mrs. Thatcher—on first entering the House. It occurred to us on the Liberal Democrat Benches that if the then Mrs. Thatcher been here tonight, it is clear which Lobby she would have passed through.
We have laid before the House two ways of objecting to an objectionable part of the Bill. We have offered new clause 1, which is the positive approach that the Liberal Democrats would take. We have heard from Labour Members that although they disagree with the clause they would have difficulty in supporting new clause 1, and we respect that position.
We shall pursue new clause 1 to a Division, having had an assurance from the Chair that there will be a separate Division on amendment No. 1. That assurance came from the Chair earlier in the day, and we are grateful for it. I understand that a Division will take place on the new clause and that there will then be a discussion on backdating. That having taken place, I understand that there will be a debate on amendment No. 1, which will take place in the normal way. That is my understanding.
We have not heard a convincing response. It is time that we stood up for lone parents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nick Brown): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 458.

Division No. 112]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Harris, Dr Evan


Baker, Norman
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beggs, Roy
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brake, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Brand, Dr Peter
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Breed, Colin
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Burnett, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Burstow, Paul
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Cable, Dr Vincent
McGrady, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chidgey, David
Moore, Michael


Cotter, Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Oaten, Mark



Öpik, Lembit


Dafis, Cynog
Paisley, Rev Ian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Forsythe, Clifford
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew





Swinney, John
Webb, Steve


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Welsh, Andrew


Thompson, William
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Willis, Phil


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Trimble, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Alex Salmond and


Wallace, James
Mr. Donald Gorrie.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Alexander, Douglas
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Casale, Roger


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Arbuthnot, James



Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chope, Christopher


Ashton, Joe
Church, Ms Judith


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clappison, James


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Battle, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Benton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Bercow, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Bermingham, Gerald
Colman, Tony


Betts, Clive
Colvin, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Connarty, Michael


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corbett, Robin


Blizzard, Bob
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corston, Ms Jean


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Boateng, Paul
Cranston, Ross


Body, Sir Richard
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cummings, John


Boswell, Tim
Dalyell, Tam


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brady, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald



Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Drew, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Buck, Ms Karen
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burns, Simon
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Butterfill, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Byers, Stephen
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Richard
Evans, Nigel






Faber, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Fabricant, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Fallon, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Fatchett, Derek
Humble, Mrs Joan


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Hunter, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Hurst, Alan


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Hutton, John


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Illsley, Eric


Flight, Howard
Ingram, Adam


Flint, Caroline
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Follett, Barbara
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jenkins, Brian


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Foulkes, George
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman



Fox, Dr Liam
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fraser, Christopher



Galbraith, Sam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Gapes, Mike
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Gardiner, Barry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Garnier, Edward
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gibb, Nick
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Gill, Christopher
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Godsiff, Roger
Keeble, Ms Sally


Goggins, Paul
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Kemp, Fraser


Gray, James
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Green, Damian
Key, Robert


Greenway, John
Khabra, Piara S


Grieve, Dominic
Kidney, David


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Grocott, Bruce
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Grogan, John
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gunnell, John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Hague, Rt Hon William
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Hain, Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Lansley, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Laxton, Bob


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Leigh, Edward


Hammond, Philip
Lepper, David


Hanson, David
Leslie, Christopher


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Letwin, Oliver


Hawkins, Nick
Levitt, Tom


Hayes, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Heald, Oliver
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Healey, John
Lidington, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Linton, Martin


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Hepburn, Stephen
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Heppell, John
Lock, David


Hesford, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Love, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Luff, Peter


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hoey, Kate
McAvoy, Thomas


Home Robertson, John
McCabe, Steve


Hood, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hoon, Geoffrey
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hope, Phil
Macdonald, Calum


Horam, John
McFall, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
McIsaac, Shona


Howells, Dr Kim
MacKay, Andrew





McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Robathan, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McLeish, Henry



McLoughlin, Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


McNulty, Tony
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


MacShane, Denis
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mactaggart, Fiona
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


McWilliam, John
Rogers, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Rooker, Jeff


Major, Rt Hon John
Rooney, Terry


Malins, Humfrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallaber, Judy
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mandelson, Peter
Roy, Frank


Maples, John
Ruane, Chris


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ruffley, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Martlew, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
St Aubyn, Nick


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Savidge, Malcolm


Maxton, John
Sawford, Phil


May, Mrs Theresa
Sayeed, Jonathan


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Merron, Gillian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Milburn, Alan
Shepherd, Richard


Miller, Andrew
Shipley, Ms Debra


Moffatt, Laura
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Singh, Marsha


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moss, Malcolm
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Soames, Nicholas


Nicholls, Patrick
Soley, Clive


Norman, Archie
Southworth, Ms Helen


Norris, Dan
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Olner, Bill
Spring, Richard


O'Neill, Martin
Squire, Ms Rachel


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Ottaway, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Page, Richard
Stevenson, George


Paice, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stinchcombe, Paul


Paterson, Owen
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pearson, Ian
Stott, Roger


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Perham, Ms Linda
Streeter, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Stringer, Graham


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Swayne, Desmond


Pond, Chris
Syms, Robert


Pope, Greg
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Sir Raymond



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Prior, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Randall, John
Timms, Stephen


Rapson, Syd
Tipping, Paddy


Raynstord, Nick
Touhig, Don


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tredinnick, David


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Trend, Michael






Trickett, Jon
Wicks, Malcolm


Truswell, Paul
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wilkinson, John


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Willetts, David


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wills, Michael


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wilson, Brian


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Vaz, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Woodward, Shaun


Walter, Robert
Woolas, Phil


Wardle, Charles
Worthington, Tony


Waterson, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. David Jamieson and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

BACKDATING OF BENEFIT

'.—(1) For subsection (2) of section 1 of the Administration Act (entitlement to benefit dependent on claim) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(2) Except as provided by section 3 below, where under subsection (1) above a person is required to make a claim, or to be treated as making a claim, for a benefit in order to be entitled to it, the person shall be entitled to it—

(a) from the date on which the claim is made; or
(b) in respect of the period from the date on which the conditions for entitlement to benefit would have been satisfied had a claim been made at that time, or 12 months prior to the claim, whichever is the later, provided that that claim was made without unreasonable delay and that benefit shall only be paid in respect of such periods during which the person would have been so entitled.".'.—[Mr. Webb.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New schedule 1—'Exceptions to the backdating of benefits—

All Benefits

1. The backdating of benefits for a period longer than one month may be allowed for—

(a) cases where entitlement to benefit is dependent on the claimant's, or another person's entitlement to another benefit; and
(b) Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance claims, where a previous claim to Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance has been refused because the claimant or partner is in remunerative work and the Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance Claim is made within 14 days of the determination on the Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance claim.

Income Related Benefits

2. The backdating of income related benefits for a period no longer than one month may be allowed for—

(a) claimants who have difficulty communicating because of learning, language or literacy difficulties;
(b) claimants who are deaf or blind for whom there is no one else to make their claim;

(c) claimants who are ill or disabled for whom there is no one else to make their claim, except in the case of a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance;
(d) claimants who were given misleading information by an officer of the Department of Social Security or of the Department for Education and Employment;
(e) claimants who were given misleading advice in writing by a solicitor or other professional adviser, or by a medical practitioner, a Local Authority or by a person working in a Citizens Advice Bureau or a similar advice agency;
(f) claimants who have been given misleading information in writing about their income or capital by their employer or former employer, or by a bank or building society;
(g) claimants who are required to deal with a domestic emergency affecting them, for whom there is no one else to make the claim; and
(h) claimants who are prevented from attending the appropriate office by adverse weather conditions.

Delayed Claims

3. The backdating of income related benefits for a period no longer than one month may be allowed in cases where claimants are forced to delay claiming because—

(a) the appropriate office, where the claimant would be expected to make a claim, was unable to provide a service and alternative arrangements were not available;
(b) the claimant was unable to attend the appropriate office due to difficulties with his normal mode of transport and there was no reasonable alternative available;
(c) there were adverse postal conditions;
(d) the claimant was previously in receipt of another benefit, and notification of expiry of entitlement to that benefit was not sent to the claimant before the date that his entitlement expired;
(e) for Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance the claimant had previously been entitled to Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance and the claim for Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance was made within one month of expiry of entitlement to the previous benefit;
(f) for Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance the claimant had previously been entitled to Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance and the claim for Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance was made within one month of expiry of entitlement to the previous benefit;
(g) the claimant recently separated from his partner; or
(h) a close relative of the claimant recently died.

Refugees

4. Refugees may be allowed, where the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to claim backdated awards of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit to the date of the asylum application.

Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity
Allowance

5. Claims for Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity Allowance may be allowed to be backdated if employers delay in notifying the claimants that they had no entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay or Statutory Maternity Pay.

Further Exceptions

6. Further exceptions may be allowed in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed.

Amendment No. 2, in clause 72, page 47, leave out lines 7 to 26.

Amendment No. 6, in clause 72, page 47, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert—

'(a) in respect of contributory benefits, non-contributory benefits and pensions, grants and allowances paid under the Naval, Military and Airforce (for disablement and death) Service Pensions Order 1983-

(i) in respect of any period (or, in the case of a widow's payment, any death occurring) more than three months before the date on which the claim is made or treated to as made; or
(ii) in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, in respect of any period before that date; and


(b) in respect of, income-related benefits, benefit for industrial injuries and child benefit-
(i) in respect of any period more than one month before the date on which the claim is made or treated as made; or
(ii) in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, in respect of any period before that date.
( ) In this section "contributory benefits", "non-contributory benefits", "income related benefits", "benefit for industrial injuries", and "child benefit" shall have the same meaning as defined in Chapter 4 of the Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.'.

Amendment No. 32, in clause 72, page 47, line 18, leave out 'may be prescribed' and insert
'are prescribed in Schedule (Exceptions to the backdating of benefits)'.

Government amendment No. 18.

Mr. Webb: I am sure that the House will want to move promptly to the vote on amendment No. 1, so I shall be as brief as possible. New clause 2—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Webb: New clause 2 relates to the backdating of benefit claims where an individual does not make a claim on time. Until April 1997, it was possible to backdate a claim for up to 12 months if one had good cause for not making a claim on time. From April 1997, the Conservatives introduced a cut. They removed the idea of good cause and restricted backdating to a maximum of three months. That took £120 million from some of the poorest people in the country, including £50 million from pensioners and £50 from the sick and disabled.
Clause 72, which new clause 2 seeks to overturn—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is extremely unfair to the hon. Gentleman that the House is so noisy. Perhaps conversations could take place outside the Chamber.

Mr. Webb: Clause 72 further restricts people's rights when they claim their benefits late. It goes even further than the Conservatives were prepared to go. It takes an extra £60 million from the poorest households in the country, penalises them for ignorance of the system, takes £14 million off pensioners and takes £18 million from disabled people. The losers include 100,000 people on income support. This is not merely discretionary money that does not matter. Basic living standards will suffer.
The clause introduces restrictions on the backdating of housing benefit, reducing it for the first time from one year to one month. That means that people who build up

rent arrears because they claim their benefit late will not be able to clear those arrears by means of a backdated payment, and may lose their house.
The St. Mungo's centre in London is worried about the implications of the backdating changes. It says:
Backdating housing benefit can help them keep up to date with their rent, cope in their own homes and not end up back on the streets.
New clause 2 seeks to overturn clause 72 and introduce an alternative provision. Clause 72 could lead to greater homelessness and greater public expenditure.
The fundamental point is that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
We want to ensure that the system is not run on the basis of getting things wrong and then backdating to sort them out."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 787.]
In other words, let us get things right first time and not backdate when they have gone wrong. We agree with that, but the paradox about the backdating proposals in the Bill is that if no one received his money late, backdating would not be necessary. If the system gets money to people on time, we do not need clause 72 or new clause 2, but the Government know, and we know, that people will continue to get their money late through no fault of their own, and clause 72 restricts their right to receive it.
New clause 2 simply says that people should have up to 12 months backdated benefit if, for a good reason, they delay a claim. What are the good reasons why people claim their benefits late? They can be ill health, infirmity, lack of understanding of the system—for goodness sake, it is complicated—or bereavement.
Representatives of elderly people's organisations say that it is unreasonable to expect that a bereaved person will always be able to find the way through the maze of benefits, such as income support, within a month of the death. The measure penalises bereaved people and those who do not understand the system.
New clause 2 simply says that if one has a good reason for claiming late, one should be able to claim up to a year's backdating. Without the new clause, the Bill will penalise people who, through no fault of their own, do not understand the system.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I shall not support the amendments and shall support the Government, but I want to discuss issues relating to industrial injuries disablement benefit, because neither the amendments nor the new clause address that issue. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, the previous Government abolished the whole concept of a good-cause exception, and nothing in the amendments or the new clause addresses that fundamental problem.
We have to go far beyond the concept of backdating for one, two or three months or even a year; we need to look fundamentally at the way we address the issue, because industrial injuries disablement benefit raises special problems. Sometimes symptoms can develop late—long after illness has started and long after exposure to harmful substances such as asbestos has occurred. Asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma lead to an extremely unpleasant death, as I have seen in my previous life as a lawyer representing people with mesothelioma.

Mr. Godman: My hon. Friend obviously has legal experience, so can he correct an assumption of mine?


I was under the impression, following a famous case taken by a commissioner, that there was such a thing as justifiable ignorance; is that not still the case?

Mr. Dismore: It is my understanding that the previous Government abolished that, with effect from April 1997. That is the issue I am currently addressing and I hope to give some ideas to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who is to respond to the debate.
Mesothelioma is a prime example of the problems that can arise. It leads to an extremely unpleasant death, especially in the last three months of life. It is a fatal illness and those last three months are extremely traumatic for the family and extremely painful and distressing for the individual sufferer. Similar problems arise in respect of other industrial diseases and cancers.
Sometimes, there can be late diagnosis or even a diagnosis made only after the post mortem. Regrettably, that is an all too frequent occurrence in respect of lung diseases. In addition, diagnosis can take a long time to come through: for example, patch testing for dermatitis can take many weeks before a diagnosis can be made.
Problems can arise in making a causal connection between the illness and the hazard at work that caused it. An example I cited in Committee was that of a dental nurse whose claim I dealt with, who suffered from glutaraldehyde poisoning. Glutaraldehyde is a sterilising chemical used in dentistry; the nurse suffered quite severe nasal and respiratory trouble, but it was nearly a year before she realised that there was a causal connection between the chemicals with which she was working and her illness.
Repetitive strain injury is becoming an increasingly common and recognised problem, particularly for those who work on keyboards. Again, the causal connection can often be extremely difficult to establish, and a diagnosis may be long in the making. That problem was recognised by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which commented on the previous Government's proposals and said that one of the problems with delays in the payment of disability benefit was that
the delay in establishing the correct diagnosis may take months or even years, given that General Practitioners will often need to refer cases to specialists. Moreover, the attribution of a commonly recurring condition to an occupational cause is often controversial, leading to a longer delay.
It was critical of the previous Government's proposals.
The answer is not to go back to the old ways of simply looking at the matter in terms of good cause. We need to develop new ideas to deal with such cases. The problem with good cause is that it relied on the discretion of an adjudication officer in the Department of Social Security. If one has to rely on someone's discretion, the decision can go either way.
I have some sympathy with the previous Government's response to the SSAC's comments on good cause. They said that the problem with the good-cause exception was that it ran
counter to the objective of improving administrative efficiency by aligning the backdating rules as far as possible and removing the need for adjudication officers to consider good cause, which is a costly provision to operate.

I should like to devise a new way of looking at such cases which did not rely on a good-cause defence and gave people the right to have benefit from an early stage, perhaps from the date of diagnosis or perhaps some other possible date.
As part of our overall review of social security we must look at that problem and come up with an imaginative solution rather than opting for the old methods used pre-April 1997 or the old method of backdating payment for a month or two. Frankly, that does not address the evil that I have identified in some of the cases and illnesses I have described. To backdate a claim for two months, three months or perhaps a year is purely arbitrary. We must find a more imaginative way of proceeding.

Mr. Godman: I should like to cite an example where I believe that a claim of justifiable ignorance would be useful. Recently, two of my constituents who are crew members of a Caledonian MacBrayne ferry complained to me about their experience. They went into the crew's quarters and were told that it contained asbestos-contaminated material. I advised them to inform the Health and Safety Executive in Glasgow. Could that action be used as evidence if, God forbid, they had to make a claim in 10 years or 15 years because they were suffering from asbestosis?

Mr. Dismore: That could be evidence in a civil law claim, but that does not address the problem that faces us, which relates to the industrial injuries scheme. That evidence may prove good causal connection at a later date, but the difficulty with respiratory conditions in particular is that it is often many years before the illness starts to develop. It may be many years after that before the sufferer, thinking back 20 years, makes a causal connection and seeks a diagnosis from the GP. After that, it may be some time before the patient is referred to a consultant for an opinion. Some conditions are not even detected until a post mortem is conducted. Those problems with the old system are not addressed by the amendments. That is why we need to look for a more imaginative solution.
I do not want to run the risk of people making premature claims. I do not want people to make speculative claims because they think, "I may have a certain condition and I had better put a claim in quick just in case because I do not want to be caught up by some backdating rules." Such claims could clog up the system and defeat the prime objective of the Bill. It is about not just lone-parent benefit or backdating, but the fundamental need to modernise the social security claims system to make it work more efficiently. The problems associated with backdating could militate against that laudable goal.
We must think about imaginative solutions and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will consider that as part of an overall review of DSS procedures and benefits. I hope that, at a later date, he will offer us some ideas to deal with a real problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), may I tell the Minister that in my inner-city constituency, hardly a week goes by without people coming to my surgery already at risk or having suffered loss of benefit because they have not been able


to claim on time, or have not been advised that they had a right to claim, or have been misled by others. They expected the Government to rescue them from the callousness of the previous Government, yet the Labour Government intend to target the people who are struggling most.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues understand the practical implications for people who are desperately trying to make ends meet. When they fail, some of them are driven to illness, self-abuse, suicide attempts and so on, because they are not coping. It is a real, practical, weekly problem, and for those of us who try to look after them, the proposal is one of the most unhelpful steps that the Government could take.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Clause 72 is not only draconian in its effect, but is perhaps the only truly original part of the Bill. It was not proposed by the previous Government, but is entirely home grown. It might be for the convenience of the House to say that we intend to divide on new schedule 1.
In Committee, Conservative Members expressed the deep concerns of many organisations about the Government's proposals to restrict the backdating of benefit claims. The Bill allows enormous scope to the Government to legislate by regulations later. Indeed, that was a subplot throughout the Committee stage. More than once, the Minister promised to let the Committee see draft regulations to be passed under the Bill, and on a number of occasions we pressed him to redeem that promise. However, there has so far been a marked reluctance by Ministers to produce those draft regulations, and by and large the Committee stage came and went without any drafts.
Even on Second Reading, Ministers were clearly defensive on the subject of backdating. They said that hardship provisions would be considered in Committee. The Committee was indebted to the Minister for a stream of helpful letters and memorandums on various aspects of the Bill. The Minister was at pains to ensure that the Committee had the benefit of the Government's thinking on a number of issues, yet until we came to the debate on clause 72, the Committee had been kept in the dark on backdating. One might say that that was the dog that did not bark.
On 20 November, shortly after the debate had commenced, the Minister rose to announce a series of exemptions from the effects of clause 72. That was followed by the Minister's letter to the Committee dated 25 November, setting out in enormous detail the various exemptions. The fact that the Minister has been so detailed and frank about the Government's intentions is not, I believe, a result of the Government's professed commitment to open government—which, as we have seen on more than one occasion recently, is much in doubt. Rather, it is a tribute to the persistence of the Opposition on the Committee.
New schedule 1 and amendment No. 32 have the simple effect of listing the same exemptions that the Minister listed in his letter to the Committee of 25 November—no more, no less. The effect of the new schedule is to challenge the Government to put in the Bill what they claim that they intend to do by way of regulation. These are important issues affecting many vulnerable people, and they should appear in the Bill. If the Government were able to give in Committee such a precise list of exceptions to the harsh backdating provisions, surely they can commit themselves and accept our new schedule.
At the end of the proposed new schedule, we make it clear that further exceptions may be allowed. That merely echoes what the Minister stated in his letter to the Committee. In addition, amendment No. 6 seeks to take account of the Government's arguments for cost cutting, and to recognise that there are many groups, including the elderly, the recently widowed and the severely disabled, for whom one month will simply not be enough time. The amendment targets those groups and gives them an extra two months' leeway. Moreover, with respect to contributory benefits, backdating will give them money to which they are entitled and to which they have contributed through their national insurance contributions.
I also point out to the Minister that the distinction we seek to draw in the amendment between the various types of benefit is exactly the same as the distinction that he drew in his letter of 25 November—I see the Minister nodding. In that letter, he says that there will be automatic backdating for non-income-related benefits such as retirement pension, widows' benefit and child benefit. The principal, if not the only, difference between what we suggest and what the Minister proposes is that we advocate three months and he wants only one month. The amendment provides for three months' backdating for incapacity benefit, invalidity benefit, maternity allowances, benefits for widows and widowers, retirement pensions, war widows' pensions, attendance allowances, severe disablement allowances, invalidity care allowances and disability living allowances.
9.30 pm
The amendment is an attempt to persuade the Government to compromise and accept the adverse effects that clause 72 will have on many vulnerable people. I have already explained that the clause can claim no parentage from the previous Government. It is not open to the Minister to claim, as the Secretary of State claims, that in some bizarre way he is a prisoner of the Conservative Government's spending plans.
What is the Government's motive in bringing forward those tough provisions? Are they designed to correct some perceived unfairness or anomaly in the existing system? The answer is no: clause 72 is about saving money, and nothing else. In fairness, the Government have been very up front about that. The sole reason given for the clause was to meet the costs of the Government's decision to revoke the single room rent restriction on single housing benefit claimants aged under 25. By way of parenthesis, it is interesting to note that the Minister has had very little to say about the future of 25 to 59-year-olds—it seems that that is a matter for review.
It was also pointed out in Committee that research has shown that the Government's plans were based on there being 155,000 more rent allowance claimants than there actually are. A recent report by the National Federation of Landlords has estimated that housing benefit expenditure could be as much as £500 million less in a year than had been anticipated.
That brings me to the curious case of the constant £57 million. As the Minister readily conceded in his letter to the Committee of 25 November, when the Bill was first published on 9 July, the explanatory and financial memorandum stated that clause 72 was expected to generate net programme savings of £57 million in a full year. I have pointed out that, on Second Reading,


Ministers said that they were already thinking about possible exceptions. However, as the Minister said in his letter, they
had not decided on the range and type of specific exceptions".
The Minister explained how the Government had been taking careful note of the representations from groups such as Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. He said:
it was only very recently that final decisions could be taken on the range of exceptions".
The use of the word "final" is curious because in his letter and in Committee the Minister said that the proposed regulations were certainly not set in stone, yet the line taken by the Minister both in correspondence and in Committee was that the figure of £57 million remained valid.
When pressed by me in Committee on how the original estimate would be affected by the exclusions he had just announced, the Minister maintained that the figure included those exceptions. It surely cannot be right that the original figure of £57 million remains accurate and takes full account of the long list of complex exclusions. Is it really the case that those exclusions will not make a difference of a penny more or less to the predicted figure?
In Committee, the Minister talked about a "broad brush", but the figure of £57 million is pretty precise in the broader context of the social security budget. Now that he has had more time for mature reflection, I ask the Minister to be a little more frank on that subject. It stands to reason that either the £57 million figure was right originally and is now wrong, having been overtaken by events—we could all understand that, and there would be no shame in admitting it—or, if the new figure is believed to be accurate and takes full account of the proposed exemptions, the original estimate must have been wrong. It would also be helpful if the Minister could explain precisely how he and his colleagues intend to spend that not insignificant saving. Will it be taken up elsewhere in their budget, or will it be snaffled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for other purposes? Since the Committee stage, the Minister has had a fair time to reflect on the matter and I await his answers with interest. In passing, I note estimates that, in a single year, the Government's clause will affect 105,000 income support claimants, 50,000 housing benefit claimants and 115,000 council tax benefit claimants.
I have explained the circumstances in which the Minister's announcement came to be made in Committee. I make no personal criticism of the Minister, but it would be fair to say that the Committee was taken by surprise—it was "bounced". Without any notice or proper briefing on that long, complex list of exclusions, all that I and my hon. Friends could do was give the Minister's announcement a cautious welcome. I said that we would give it more detailed consideration, as would concerned organisations.
That has happened and, in many respects, the Minister's announcement has been seen through. For example, Age Concern says that, for means-tested benefits, the Minister's much-flaunted exceptions are very much in line with the current "special reasons" for backdating. In future, a maximum of one month will be permitted in replacement of the current three months for

income support and 12 months for housing and council tax benefits. The one-month limit will apply even if the claim has not been pressed because of misleading information from benefit staff or other sources, or because someone had been seriously ill at the time.
Age Concern is also worried about the inflexible one-month limit for means-tested or non-means-tested benefits where there has been a bereavement. The Minister tried to deal with that in Committee by saying that nearly all widows' benefit claims are made within one month of the death of the spouse, but Age Concern, which should know after all, does not accept that that is necessarily true for means-tested benefits for which people will qualify only after the death of the spouse.
In Committee, we welcomed the Government's acknowledgment of the problems that can arise where a benefit claim depends on the claimant's entitlement, or another person's entitlement, to another benefit. However, I join Age Concern in seeking reassurance from the Minister that the backdating provisions will be applied flexibly, so that people do not have to make unnecessary claims for benefits to which they know they are not entitled.
I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat the argument that if people are better informed about the benefits to which they are entitled, that will reduce the need for backdating. That is a superficially attractive argument. Surely a better system can be devised, so that we do not depend on backdating to get things right. That is precisely why my amendment is in the form that it is. The majority of people, with the right information, will be able to claim their full entitlement in due time. However, it is still the vulnerable groups to which I have referred that will find it hardest to be informed fully and, due to many likely circumstances, will not be willing to start to sort out their affairs for a period that might exceed three months, let alone one.
Age Concern makes the same point. It rightly welcomes the announcement of research into why older people do not claim income support and of other pilot studies to try to improve take-up. Of course, that is absolutely right. Forty per cent. of my voters in Eastbourne are over retirement age. All too often in my advice surgeries, I come across elderly people who simply do not claim the benefits to which they are clearly entitled, but I agree with Age Concern that we should start to tinker with the backdating rules only if and when we have tackled the problem of low take-up.
After careful reflection following the Committee stage, Age Concern's conclusion is particularly damning. It says:
the Minister's statements in Committee do little to reassure us. We remain extremely concerned that these measures will severely penalise many vulnerable older people who do not claim benefits as soon as they become entitled to them.
Help the Aged has also written to express its concerns. It says:
The effect of clause 72 will undoubtedly cause additional hardship to many of the most vulnerable older people.
It also makes the valid point that many such claimants use the money from backdated claims to pay off debts such as rent arrears that have accrued in the meantime.
In some ways, the reaction of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is even more disappointing for the Minister. It refers to the exemptions announced by the Minister in Committee, saying:
these were interpreted by many as new concessions".
It points out, however, that the exemptions were merely a reiteration of the circumstances in which income-related benefits could be backdated, prescribed by the previous Government in April this year. The only significant difference—and it is a big difference—is that the Minister proposes to reduce the existing three-month period to one month.
The citizens advice bureaux are in no doubt about the Government's true motives. They say:
the Government's reasons for imposing further limits on the back-dating of benefits have little to do with a rational appraisal of what is most fair and logical, and everything to do with making further benefit savings.
They point out that, in March this year, the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the then new limits on backdating should not be proceeded with.
The citizens advice bureaux also have sensible things to say about the balance to be struck between encouraging take-up and limiting backdating. Of course they support the Government's stated wish to improve the system so that people understand what they are entitled to—who would not?—but they conclude, and cite a number of cases in support of their view, that
it is only too evident that back-dating provisions are an essential `back-stop' to the present fragmented benefit structure.
I suspect that, deep down, the Minister agrees with that view. Indeed, he admitted as much in Committee, during a debate on a quite different clause, when he said:
If any amendment imposed such a requirement on us now, the problems of administration—which is already complex, bureaucratic and inefficient—would be exacerbated, as our current systems cannot always work in the integrated fashion to which we aspire."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 October 1997; c. 48.]
That was a very clear statement by the Minister of the position as he saw it.
The citizens advice bureaux also cite a number of specific examples in regard to which they have sought clarification from the Department since the conclusion of the Committee stage—sadly, without success in a number of instances, particularly the exception in which one benefit is linked to others. I shall not weary the House with all the detail, but they mention attendance allowance and disability living allowance linked with a subsequent claim for income support, cases in which a carer's entitlement to invalid care allowance depends on a successful claim for attendance allowance or disability living allowance by the person being cared for, incapacity benefit and income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Our new scedule is an attempt to persuade the Government to compromise, and to accept the adverse effects that clause 72 would have on many vulnerable people. It is reasoned and reasonable. It makes provision for those people, and gives them at least two extra months. If the Government reject it, they will deal a direct blow to the elderly, widows and the severely disabled, putting small budget savings ahead of their needs. On any view, these are harsh measures, even when we weigh them against the exemptions announced in Committee. I believe that, if they accepted the new schedule, the Government

would still keep a large part of the envisaged £57 million saving—and, at the same time, they would have the satisfaction of helping those who are most in need.

Mr. Tom Brake: At lunchtime today I spoke at the Sutton carers forum, which represents 20,000 carers in that London borough. Hon. Members will probably not be surprised to learn that carers are alarmed by the Government's proposals relating to invalid care allowance and its backdating by only one month.
I want to quote from a letter that was handed to me by a constituent at the meeting. He gave up a well-paid job to care for his wife. He wrote:
The care of your loved one is more than enough to worry about without the added problem of dealing with bureaucracy. The change to a carer's financial position is one that only becomes apparent once life has settled down after the initial shock.
It was six months before that carer realised that the money had run out and that he needed benefit. By seeking to backdate invalid care allowance by just one month, the Government are hitting the poorest hardest. I am afraid that that seems to be a habit that the Government are acquiring. I hope that they will think again, because carers deserve much better than is currently on offer.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I have written to the Minister about backdating being limited to a month, and I am grateful for his response. Perhaps in his winding-up speech he will address the issue of bereavement. After the death of a loved one, many widows are in shock, and sorting out their finances will not be their top priority in the month following the death. Many of them may not be capable of sorting out their finances in that time. For example, there may not be close family members to help them. Within the marriage they may not have been in charge of finances or, indeed, had anything to do with them. Perhaps the deceased had full control of the finances. Widows might not know that they are suddenly poor and eligible to apply for benefit.
When such conditions apply, I would favour some discretion by the authorities to allow them to pay benefit to such widows. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said that the Government had allowed extra time in some cases. I am not aware of that from the Minister's reply to me, and I seek some clarification about widows in the month following bereavement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): I shall deal first with amendment No. 2, new clause 2 and amendment No. 6. The amendments seek to provide longer general time limits for the backdating of late claims for benefit—12 months and three months respectively rather than the one month that we propose. Amendment No. 2 and new clause 2 would return us to the position prior to the changes that were introduced in April by the previous Administration. They would not only cause the savings resulting from our proposals to be lost but introduce further costs of about £135 million a year.
Part of the reason for the measure was to not extend the single room rent restrictions to 25 to 59-year-olds. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) incorrectly said that we were not extending the restrictions


to those who are under the age of 25. We are evaluating the previous Government's restrictions to the under-25s. That is being closely monitored, and we shall report on it early next year.
Good government means setting the right priorities within limited resources. Where savings are needed, our priority must be the payment of benefit to meet current entitlement. That is a prudent and reasonable approach. We have to make realistic choices, and we have chosen sensibly according to reasonable priorities. We have also taken care to ensure that special cases will be covered through a range of exceptions. They will ensure the necessary flexibility in a scheme which we want to be as straightforward and easily understood as possible by customers and staff.
In reply to the first question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), the exceptions will fall into three broad categories. Under the first category, backdating will be allowed beyond the general one-month time limit. It will apply to both non-income-related and income-related benefits. It will include cases in which entitlement to a benefit is dependent on the claimant's or another person's entitlement to another benefit. It is obviously unreasonable for administrative delays in awarding one benefit to deprive a person of entitlement to another.
The second group of exceptions will be on income-related benefits, for which the basic rule will be no backdating. Backdating up to the one-month time limit will be permitted if special reasons apply. That will include cases in which the customer has difficulty communicating because he has learning, language or literacy difficulties, or he is deaf or blind and there is no one else to make a claim on his behalf. It also includes customers who are caring for a person who is ill or disabled and there is no one else to make the claim.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have noticed that, from time to time, all Governments in the past 20 years have, when they have found it necessary, spent considerable sums telling people that they should claim various benefits. Newspaper advertisements tell people how to claim. That gives the impression that the Government are saying, "We've got some money, and you ought to be getting hold of it," which runs counter to this restriction on backdating. The implication is that there are loads of people out there who are ignorant of the benefits that they can claim, but my hon. Friend is proposing to prevent the people whom we are anxious to ensure receive benefits from backdating their claims. One runs counter to the other. Will he explain how he has come to that conclusion?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall come to that specific point a little later in this reasonably brief summing up. I shall first complete the list of exceptions.
The third category will provide for up to one month's backdating of income-related benefits for customers who are forced to delay claiming for various reasons: the appropriate office was closed and alternative arrangements were not available; they were unable to attend the appropriate office because of difficulties with

the normal mode of transport and there was no alternative; there were adverse postal conditions; they have recently separated from a partner; or a close relative of the customer has recently died. I shall elaborate on that in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Our proposals also provide a basis, as part of our general review of social security, for our medium and long-term aim of streamlining existing arrangements for claiming benefits. In line with that aim, I have asked officials—I explained this in Committee, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) did not refer to it—to examine whether the processes for claiming specific benefits can be significantly improved.
The Bill contains a provision on data sharing. When someone has made a claim for one benefit in one part of the organisation, that information is automatically made available to ensure that it triggers entitlement to other benefits. That practice will be extended across agencies, such as between the Benefits Agency and a local authority, to ensure that people do not have to search around to find out about their entitlement: it is automatically triggered.
I have also asked whether specific administrative arrangements can be established to ensure that when a baby is born, that information automatically triggers the receipt of child benefit. Whether the baby is born in hospital, at home, or under the domino arrangement, proper provisions will be in place to ensure that the claim is made. The same applies to widows' benefits. I am sensitive to the traumatic effect of a death, but whatever the circumstances, it has to be registered within five days. If that process is linked to the administration of benefits that flow from that death, backdating does not apply, because the widows' benefit will have been triggered.
We shall have a much more streamlined service. Officials are examining closely how we can put those arrangements into practice.

Mr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the provisions will cover those with learning difficulties, particularly in cases in which someone with a learning disability, or perhaps with mental health problems, has lost what might be called a caring adult?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to repeat the point that exceptions for learning difficulties are included in the list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made a very important point on industrial injuries benefit, specifically as it relates to diseases. In Committee and since then, he has repeatedly made representations to me on that point. I repeat what I said in Committee. I am sympathetic to the point, and I think that we shall have to consider imaginatively how we can deal with it, quite separately from the way in which the backdating proposals will operate. I have been in touch with officials to investigate how industrial diseases of the type that my hon. Friend mentioned can be dealt with more appropriately.
Administration of the system is important. It will be made easier when evidence supporting a claim is fresh and immediately relevant, as there will be less need for staff to make follow-up inquiries to check on the accuracy of details that are often several months old. In that


context, the approach that we advocate—a one-month backdating time limit, with a prescribed list of exceptions—will be easy to understand, underlines customers' responsibility for making a claim on time and is consistent with the general public's expectations.
Taking into account the principles underlying the proposal, and in view of the exceptions that we intend to adopt, I ask the hon. Member for Northavon to withdraw his new clause and not to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 32 and new schedule 1 propose to include in the Bill a list of exceptions that allow backdating of income-related claims for up to one month and, in certain circumstances, backdating of specific benefits beyond the one-month maximum. As I announced in Committee, we propose to provide for exceptions in regulations. Those exceptions include all the specific circumstances stated in the new schedule.
I am pleased that the Opposition support the exceptions that we propose. It would not be sensible, however, to add the new schedule to the Bill. Exceptions are necessarily stated precisely and in some detail. Although the proposed schedule would allow us to add further exceptions by making regulations, it would not allow any amendment of the details that are currently included without recourse to primary legislation.
The listed exceptions cover administration of a number of benefits. Should any small change be needed—perhaps for only a technical reason—we would have to come back and take up the House's valuable time, to obtain the necessary authority to change primary legislation.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with my point in such detail. Leaving aside small technical matters, does he now, as of today, envisage any significant additions to or subtractions from the list of exceptions, as shown in our new schedule and in his letter to the Committee?

Mr. Bradley: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are a listening Government. The proposals are still making their way through the House. They will have to go to the other place, and further representations will be made. Final regulations will eventually be laid before the House for further debate. Until then, there is always an opportunity to make changes. If we accept his new schedule today, however, and add it to the Bill, that opportunity will be lost. I assume from his intervention that he will not press his new schedule.
In Committee, I undertook to table amendment No. 18, which corrects an unintended effect resulting from the drafting of clause 72. It amends section 3 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which provides for late claims to widows' benefit in rare cases such as those involving a missing person, when death is difficult to establish. The amendment will ensure that in such special circumstances, the current period of 12 months will continue to be allowed between the time when a body is discovered and identified, and the time when the widow is advised of this. I commend the amendment to the House and hope that the other amendments will be withdrawn or rejected.

Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to wind up the debate. I do not intend to take much of the House's time over it.
To cut through some of the verbiage that has gone before, the heart of new clause 2 is that the Government are expecting to pay out less in benefits, by restricting the amount of backdating. If they pay out less in benefits by restricting backdating, that inevitably means that—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Janet Anderson.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Rendel: With new clause 2, we are trying to overcome what will inevitably be a restriction in benefits to those who have the right to them, but who may not claim them in time. If anyone doubts that that will happen, he or she need only look at what the Government are saying about the drop in the amount that they are expecting to pay out in benefits as a result of clause 72.
I am especially worried about housing benefit. People have said to me that they are concerned about the difficulties of people who do not claim housing benefit on time. They get into arrears on their rent or their mortgage and as a result, they may later find themselves without a home. That should be of great concern to every hon. Member.
It is also true that many of the benefit forms that claimants face are off-putting. Some of them are long and complex. I was delighted to hear the Minister say in Committee and today that he is looking for imaginative solutions and for ways in which the claim forms can be made rather easier to understand. That will overcome some of the problems. I have no doubt, however, that there will still be a need for some complexity in the forms, and that some claimants will find them difficult to handle and will be put off making their claims in time for that reason alone.
We want those who are due benefits but who do not claim them on time, with good reason, to be given a chance to claim them more than one month late. I do not suggest that the Government should allow anybody to claim any time after the event. If people are dilatory and put off a claim for no good reason, there is some justification for saying that they should have pressure put on them to make their claim promptly, by the introduction of a restriction on the extent to which they can backdate the claim. If, however, people have a good reason for a late claim, it is only right and proper that the claim should be allowed from the time that the benefit was first due to them.
I am unhappy with the Minister's response, and we wish to press new clause 2 to a vote. Conservative Members may press new schedule 1 to a vote. We see some justification for having the special reasons put on the face of the Bill, and we shall support new schedule 1 if it is pressed to a vote.
We do not believe that it is possible to predict everybody's reasons for being late with a claim. For that reason alone, it would be better for the House to agree to new clause 2 rather than to new schedule.1. We would, however, rather have new schedule 1 than nothing. We believe that only new clause 2 will properly allow the Government to pay all the benefits to people who need them and are due them.

Mr. Waterson: I do not want to weary the House by going over the arguments for new schedule 1 yet again, self-evident and excellent though they are. Suffice it to say that the Minister has not explained adequately why he is not prepared to accept it. I am genuinely surprised that he is not. If he can write a letter to the Committee setting out the exceptions in such exquisite detail, there is no reason why that should not be part of the Bill. I shall move new schedule 1 formally, and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The house divided: Ayes 57, Noes 345.

Division No. 113]
[10.4 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Salmond, Alex


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dafis, Cynog
Stunell, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Swinney, John


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Forsythe, Clifford
Wallace, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Welsh, Andrew


Gorrie, Donald
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. Paul Keetch.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainger, Nick
Austin, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beard, Nigel


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Begg, Miss Anne


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)





Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Bermingham, Gerald
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boateng, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Borrow, David
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Galbraith, Sam



Galloway, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Butler, Mrs Christine
Godman, Norman A


Byers, Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Gunnell, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Church, Ms Judith
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Dawson, Hilton
Ingram, Adam


Denham, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Drew, David



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)






Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Powell, Sir Raymond


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Primarolo, Dawn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Lepper, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rapson, Syd


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lock, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Love, Andrew



McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rogers, Allan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McGuire, Mrs. Anne
Rowlands, Ted


McIsaac, Shona
Roy, Frank


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ruane, Chris


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McNulty, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


MacShane, Denis
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Milburn, Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Norris, Dan (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann






Vis, Dr Rudi


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Watts- David


Temple-Morris, Peter
White, Brian


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Truswell, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

New schedule 1

'EXCEPTIONS TO THE BACKDATING OF BENEFITS

All Benefits

1. The backdating of benefits for a period longer than one month may be allowed for—

(a) cases where entitlement to benefit is dependent on the claimant's, or another person's entitlement to another benefit; and
(b) Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance claims, where a previous claim to Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance has been refused because the claimant or partner is in remunerative work and the Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance Claim is made within 14 days of the determination on the Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance claim.

Income Related Benefits

2. The backdating of income related benefits for a period no longer than one month may be allowed for—

(a) claimants who have difficulty communicating because of learning, language or literacy difficulties;
(b) claimants who are deaf or blind for whom there is no one else to make their claim;
(c) claimants who are ill or disabled for whom there is no one else to make their claim, except in the case of a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance;
(d) claimants who were given misleading information by an officer of the Department of Social Security or of the Department for Education and Employment;
(e) claimants who were given misleading advice in writing by a solicitor or other professional adviser, or by a medical practitioner, a Local Authority or by a person working in a Citizens Advice Bureau or a similar advice agency;
(f) claimants who have been given misleading information in writing about their income or capital by their employer or former employer, or by a bank or building society;
(g) claimants who are required to deal with a domestic emergency affecting them, for whom there is no one else to make the claim; and
(h) claimants who are prevented from attending the appropriate office by adverse weather conditions.

Delayed Claims

3. The backdating of income related benefits for a period no longer than one month may be allowed in cases where claimants are forced to delay claiming because—

(a) the appropriate office, where the claimant would be expected to make a claim, was unable to provide a service and alternative arrangements were not available;
(b) the claimant was unable to attend the appropriate office due to difficulties with his normal mode of transport and there was no reasonable alternative available;
(c) there were adverse postal conditions;
(d) the claimant was previously in receipt of another benefit, and notification of expiry of entitlement to that benefit was not sent to the claimant before the date that his entitlement expired;
(e) for Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance the claimant had previously been entitled to Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance and the claim for Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance was made within one month of expiry of entitlement to the previous benefit;
(f) for Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance the claimant had previously been entitled to Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance and the claim for Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance was made within one month of expiry of entitlement to the previous benefit;
(g) the claimant recently separated from his partner; or
(h) a close relative of the claimant recently died.

Refugees

4. Refugees may be allowed, where the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate to claim backdated awards of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit to the date of the asylum application.

Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity
Allowance

5. Claims for Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance and Maternity Allowance may be allowed to be backdated if employers delay in notifying the claimants that they had no entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay or Statutory Maternity Pay.

Further Exceptions

6. Further exceptions may be allowed in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 374.

Division No. 114]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Blunt, Crispin


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brady, Graham


Baker, Norman
Brake, Tom


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Brand, Dr Peter


Beggs, Roy
Brazier, Julian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Breed, Colin


Bercow, John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter





Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burnett, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burns, Simon
Lansley, Andrew


Burstow, Paul
Leigh, Edward


Butterfill, John
Letwin, Oliver


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Lidington, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chidgey, David
Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacKay, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Colvin, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Day, Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Moore, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Duncan, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan Smith, Iain
Norman, Archie


Evans, Nigel
Oaten, Mark


Faber, David
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Paice, James


Flight, Howard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forsythe, Clifford
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Rendel, David


Garnier, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gibb, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gill, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gorrie, Donald
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Sanders, Adrian


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hammond, Philip
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Soames, Nicholas


Hawkins, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hayes, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Stunell, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Thompson, William


Keetch, Paul
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Townend, John


Key, Robert
Tredinnick, David






Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Tyler, Paul
Wilkinson, John


Tyrie, Andrew
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Willis, Phil


Wallace, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walter, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Walter, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Wardle, Charles
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Webb, Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John Whittingdale and


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Church, Ms Judith


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas



Allen, Graham
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clwyd, Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corston, Ms Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Best, Harold
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blackman, Liz
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony



Blears, Ms Hazel
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Darvill, Keith


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald



Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Edwards, Huw


Byers, Stephen
Efford, Clive


Caborn, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Cann, Jamie
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Caton, Martin
Follett, Barbara


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)





Foulkes, George
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fyfe, Maria
Khabra, Piara S


Galbraith, Sam
Kidney, David


Galloway, George
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gapes, Mike
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lepper, David


Godman, Norman A
Leslie, Christopher


Godsiff, Roger
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Grant, Bernie
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Livingstone, Ken


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Grocott, Bruce
Lock, David


Grogan, John
Love, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McAllion, John


Hain, Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCabe, Steve


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Hanson, David
McDonagh, Siobhain


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Macdonald, Calum


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McDonnell, John


Healey, John
McFall, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McIsaac, Shona


Hepburn, Stephen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Heppell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hesford, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
MacShane, Denis


Hill, Keith
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hinchliffe, David
McWalter, Tony


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McWilliam, John


Hoey, Kate
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Home Robertson, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hood, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marek, Dr John


Hope, Phil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Martlew, Eric


Hoyle, Lindsay
Maxton, John


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Merron, Gillian


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michael, Alun


Hurst, Alan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hutton, John
Milburn, Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Miller, Andrew


Illsley, Eric
Moffatt, Laura


Ingram, Adam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mudie, George


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Norris, Dan


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Neill, Martin


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kemp, Fraser
Osborne, Ms Sandra






Palmer, Dr Nick
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pearson, Ian
Snape, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Soley, Clive


Perham, Ms Linda
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Ms Rachel


Plaskitt, James
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pond, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Pound, Stephen
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stringer, Graham


Quinn, Lawrie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Radice, Giles
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Jeff
Truswell, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shaw, Jonathan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wills, Michael


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wise, Audrey


Singh, Marsha
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12

REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DECISIONS

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 7, line 15, leave out
'then, unless regulations otherwise provide'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Clause 4

UNIFIED APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'and'.

No. 11, in page 3, line 13, at end insert
'and
(d) section 11 of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997,'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Schedule 1

APPEAL TRIBUNALS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 53, line 18, leave out 'allowances or gratuities' and insert 'or allowances'.

No. 22, in page 53, line 21, leave out 'allowances or gratuities' and insert 'or allowances'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 54, line 15, at end insert—

`Appeals in certain types of case

10.-(1) The President shall make arrangements for the identification of appeals made under section 13 of this Act which appear to him to raise questions of general importance relating to the interpretation or application of the law in respect of which the Secretary of State has decision making functions under section 1 or section 2 of this Act.

(2) The President shall, in making such arrangements as are referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above, delegate such of his powers in that regard as seem to him appropriate to any full-time chairmen of appeal tribunals who hold office for the time being.

(3) The President shall, when he identifies any cases as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, make such further arrangements as are necessary to ensure that such appeals are determined as soon as reasonably practicable in priority to other pending appeals.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in schedule 4, page 59, line 29, at end insert—'Appeals in certain types of case—
8. The Chief Social Security Commissioner shall be under the same duty as respects appeals pending under section 15 of this Act, as is the President under paragraphs 10(1) and (3) of Schedule 1 to this Act.'.

Mr. Kirkwood: I detect that the House wants to move on quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] However, if I am provoked, I might speak for a long time. I want to insinuate a thought into the Minister's mind. The amendments deal with some important procedural aspects of the Bill. Some of the clauses, especially clauses 26 and 27, contain some dramatic and far-reaching changes, about which I am concerned. Through amendments Nos. 3 and 4, I want to ask the Government to consider mitigating some of the consequences of clauses 26 and 27.
The House may not be fully aware of the powers with which clauses 26 and 27 deal, but they allow the Secretary of State to direct a social security tribunal or commissioner not to hear a case where another similar and test case is pending. That is an unprecedented power. It allows a member of the Executive to direct how members of the judiciary or quasi-judiciary shall deal with appeals that are before them in certain circumstances. That is a new power, and one that is unprecedented and the Government should be careful about the circumstances in which that sort of power is used.
The amendments would require that suitable arrangements are made for identification and hearing of test cases—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The conversation in the Chamber is growing louder. I know that hon. Members


are anxious that we should now proceed quickly, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) should be heard in silence.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want the Government to think about the possibility of looking at special provisions for identification and hearing of test cases as priority matters for social security appeal tribunals and commissioners. It can only help claimants and appellants in test cases to have their cases determined within a reasonable time against the background of the powers in clauses 26 and 27.
The amendments are perfectly self-explanatory. The Minister may say that the same results can be achieved via an administrative route or, indeed, he may even say that the Government already have the power, in the Bill, to do that. If so, I ask him to consider putting it on the face of the primary legislation. If he is unable to agree to that tonight, will he give careful consideration to making those changes so as to expedite the process? That would go with the grain of what the Government are trying to do in other parts of the Bill, while at the same time mitigating some of the new powers the Executive is taking to control appeal tribunals and commissioners. If he can give me an assurance that he will at least consider the matter between now and the Bill going to the other place, I should be happy not to press the amendments.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The amendments would impose additional duties on the president of the appeal tribunal and the chief social security commissioner. Each year, there are 300,000 appeals and such detailed examination of all of them would not be practical, given that fewer than one in 3,000 may eventually become a so-called test case. Examining each case would also create further unnecessary delays in the appeals process. The appropriate time to consider whether there is a general issue of importance is after a tribunal has decided an appeal and one of the parties has applied for leave to appeal on a point of law.
Commissioners already have complete discretion to expedite specific cases and we shall continue with that. It is our intention to speed up the process for all appeals. The amendment would create further delays, but I can assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that I shall look carefully at what he has said and consider whether any further action is appropriate. With that assurance, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Kirkwood: I give in—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

DECISIONS AGAINST WHICH NO APPEAL LIES

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 55, line 19, after 'section' insert '64(1), 71(6), 113(1) or'.

No. 24, in page 55, line 32, leave out
'in the circumstances referred to in section 160(2)'
and insert
'or income-based jobseeker's allowance in the circumstances referred to in section 160(2) or 160A(2)'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Clause 22

SUSPENSION IN PRESCRIBED CIRCUMSTANCES

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 14, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) above may also provide that, in prescribed cases or circumstances, entitlement to a relevant benefit shall cease from a date not earlier than the date on which payments were suspended.'—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Clause 56

COLLECTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 37, line 19, leave out
'provide for interest to be charged'
and insert
'subject to sub-paragraph (3A) below, provide for interest to be charged by the Secretary of State'.

No. 15, in page 37, line 48, at end insert—
'(3A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(e) above may provide that, in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, interest under those regulations may be charged by the Inland Revenue (instead of the Secretary of State) as if the regulations were made by virtue of paragraph 6 above.'

No. 16, in page 38, line 4, at beginning insert
'subject to sub-paragraph (4A) below,'.

No. 17, in page 38, line 17, at end insert—
'(4A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(h)(ii) or (iii) above may provide that, in such cases or circumstances as may be prescribed, penalties under those regulations may be imposed by the Inland Revenue (instead of the Secretary of State) as if the return in question were a contributions return within the meaning of paragraph 7 above.'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Clause 70

POWER TO REDUCE CHILD BENEFIT FOR LONE PARENTS

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 46, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 47.—[Mr. Webb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 457.

Division No. 115]
[10.38 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Caton, Martin


Austin, John
Chaytor, David


Baker, Norman
Chidgey, David


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Beggs, Roy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cotter, Brian


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brake, Tom
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Brand, Dr Peter



Breed, Colin
Dafis, Cynog


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burnett, John
Dawson, Hilton


Burstow, Paul
Dobbin, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Moore, Michael


Fearn, Ronnie
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Forsythe, Clifford
Oaten, Mark


Foster, Don (Bath)
Öpik, Lembit


Fyfe, Maria
Paisley, Rev Ian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Rendel, David


Godman, Norman A
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gorrie, Donald
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Grant, Bernie
Salmond, Alex


Harris, Dr Evan
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hinchliffe, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Skinner, Dennis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Keetch, Paul
Swinney, John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thompson, William


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Livingstone, Ken
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Wareing, Robert N


Llwyd, Elfyn
Webb, Steve


McAllion, John
Welsh, Andrew


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


McDonnell, John
Willis, Phil


McGrady, Eddie
Winnick, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


McNamara, Kevin
Wood, Mike


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Andrew Stunell.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ainger, Nick
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradshaw, Ben


Allen, Graham
Brady, Graham


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Arbuthnot, James



Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atkins, Charlotte
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Browne, Desmond


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Banks, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Barren, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Burgon, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Burns, Simon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Christine


Begg, Miss Anne
Butterfill, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Byers, Stephen


Benton, Joe
Caborn, Richard


Bercow, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Betts, Clive
Cann, Jamie


Blackman, Liz
Caplin, Ivor


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Casale, Roger


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cash, William


Blizzard, Bob
Cawsey, Ian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blunt, Crispin
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Boateng, Paul



Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Borrow, David
Church, Ms Judith


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James





Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gibb, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gill, Christopher


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gray, James


Clelland, David
Green, Damian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John


Coaker, Vernon
Grieve, Dominic


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Collins, Tim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Colman, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Colvin, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Grogan, John


Cooper, Yvette
Gunnell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hain, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cran, James
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cranston, Ross
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Crausby, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cummings, John
Hammond, Philip


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Dalyell, Tam
Hawkins, Nick


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hayes, John


Darvill, Keith
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Davidson, Ian
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Healey, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Day, Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen


Denham, John
Heppell, John


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Hesford, Stephen


Dismore, Andrew
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hill, Keith


Donohoe, Brian H
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Doran, Frank
Hoey, Kate


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Drew, David
Home Robertson, John


Duncan, Alan
Hood, Jimmy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Hoon, Geoffrey


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Hope, Phil


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Horam, John


Edwards, Huw
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Ennis, Jeff
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Evans, Nigel
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Faber, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Fabricant, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Fallon, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Fatchett, Derek
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Humble, Mrs Joan


Fisher, Mark
Hunter, Andrew


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Hutton, John


Flight, Howard
Illsley, Eric


Flint, Caroline
Ingram, Adam


Follett, Barbara
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Jenkin, Bernard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Jenkins, Brian


Foulkes, George
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fox, Dr Liam



Fraser, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Galbraith, Sam



Gapes, Mike
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Gardiner, Barry
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)






Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Michael, Alun



Milburn, Alan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Moffatt, Laura


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keeble, Ms Sally
Morley, Elliot


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Kemp, Fraser
Moss, Malcolm


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Key, Robert
Mudie, George


Khabra, Piara S
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kidney, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Nicholls, Patrick


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Norman, Archie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Norris, Dan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Olner, Bill


Lansley, Andrew
O'Neill, Martin


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Laxton, Bob
Ottaway, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Page, Richard


Lepper, David
Paice, James


Leslie, Christopher
Palmer, Dr Nick


Letwin, Oliver
Paterson, Owen


Levitt, Tom
Pearson, Ian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pendry, Tom


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Perham, Ms Linda


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Pickles, Eric


Lidington, David
Pickthall, Colin


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Pike, Peter L


Linton, Martin
Plaskitt, James


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Pond, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pope, Greg


Lock, David
Pound, Stephen


Loughton, Tim
Powell, Sir Raymond


Love, Andrew
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Luff, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Prior, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Purchase, Ken


McCabe, Steve
Quin, Ms Joyce


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Quinn, Lawrie


McDonagh, Siobhain
Radice, Giles


Macdonald, Calum
Randall, John


McFall, John
Rapson, Syd


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Raynsford, Nick


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Redwood, Rt Hon John


McIsaac, Shona
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


MacKay, Andrew
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Robathan, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McLeish, Henry



McLoughlin, Patrick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


McNulty, Tony
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


MacShane, Denis
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mactaggart, Fiona
Rogers, Allan


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madel, Sir David
Rooney, Terry


Major, Rt Hon John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Malins, Humfrey
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Mallaber, Judy
Roy, Frank


Mandelson, Peter
Ruane, Chris


Maples, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruffley, David


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Martlew, Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Savidge, Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Sawford, Phil


Maxton, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


May, Mrs Theresa
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Timms, Stephen


Shepherd, Richard
Tipping, Paddy


Shipley, Ms Debra
Touhig, Don


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Townend, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tredinnick, David


Singh, Marsha
Trend, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Snape, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Soames, Nicholas
Vaz, Keith


Soley, Clive
Viggers, Peter


Southworth, Ms Helen
Vis, Dr Rudi


Spellar, John
Walter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wardle, Charles


Spicer, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wells, Bowen


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
White, Brian


Steen, Anthony
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stevenson, George
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whittingdale, John


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Stoate, Dr Howard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stott, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Wills, Michael


Stringer, Graham
Wilson, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Syms, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 72

RESTRICTIONS ON BACKDATING OF BENEFIT

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 47, line 24, leave out
'and
(b) in subsections (2) and' and insert—
'(b) in subsection (2), for the words "12 months", in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "one month"; and
(c) in subsection'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 65, line 15, at end insert—
'. In subsection (2) of section 51 of that Act (supplementary powers to make regulations)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for sub-paragraph (iii) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(iii) the making of decisions under section 16 or 17;"; and
(b) paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.'.



No. 35, in page 66, line 8, leave out
'In paragraph 2 of Schedule 4A to that Act'
and insert
'In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A to that Act (interpretation), the definition of "review" shall cease to have effect.
( ) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule'.
No. 36, in page 66, line 9, after 'directions)', insert '(a)'.
No. 37, in page 66, line 10, at end insert
'and
(b) in sub-paragraph (c), for the words "a departure application and a review are to be dealt with" there shall be substituted the words "a decision on a departure application and a decision under section 16 or 17 are to be made".'.
No. 38, in page 75, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
'84. In section 164 of that Act (destination of payments etc.), subsection (5)(a) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 25, in page 77, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert—
'(a) for sub-paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
(a) Appeal tribunals'.
No. 26, in page 77, line 42, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
No. 27, in page 77, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert—
'(a) for sub-paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
(a) Appeal tribunals constituted under'.

No. 28, in page 80, line 33, at end insert—

'—(1) In subsection (3) of section 16 of that Act (severe hardship), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) it appears to him that the person concerned has, without good cause—
(i) neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme; or
(ii) after a place on such a scheme has been notified to him by an employment officer as vacant or about to become vacant, refused or failed to apply for it or to accept it when offered to him; or".

(2) For subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(4) In this section—
'employment officer' means an officer of the Secretary of State or such other person as may be designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State;
'period' includes—
(a) a period of a determinate length;
(b) a period defined by reference to the happening of a future event; and
(c) a period of a determinate length but subject to earlier determination upon the happening of a future event;
'training scheme' has such meaning as may be prescribed.".'

No. 29, in page 80, line 33, at end insert—

'.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 17 of that Act (reduced payments), for the word "either" there shall be substituted the word "any".

(2). In subsection (3) of that section, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(b) he has given up a place on a training scheme, or failed to attend such a scheme on which he has been given a place, and no certificate has been issued to him under subsection (4);
(c) he has lost his place on such a scheme through misconduct."

(3) For subsections (4) and (5) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
(4) Where a young person who has given up a place on a training scheme, or failed to attend such a scheme on which he has been given a place—

(a) claims that there was good cause for his doing so; and
(b) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate under this subsection,
the Secretary of State shall, if he is satisfied that there was good cause, issue a certificate to that effect and give a copy of it to the young person.

(5) In this section—
training scheme" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
young person" means a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18.".'

No. 30, in page 80, line 38, at end insert—
'. In subsection (2)(b)(ii) of section 20 of that Act (exemptions from section 19), for the words "he has failed to complete a course of training" there shall be substituted the words "the condition mentioned in section 17(3)(b) or (c) is satisfied".

No. 40, in page 80, line 46, at end insert—
'. In subsection (1) of section 36 of that Act (regulations and orders), for the words "9(13) or 19(10)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "9(13), 16(4) or 19(10)(a)".'.

No. 41, in page 81, leave out lines 24 to 28.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 83, line 15, column 3, after 'qualified', insert 'adjudicating'.

No. 43, in page 84, line 51, column 3, at end insert 'Section 51(2)(b).'.

No. 44, in page 85, line 10, column 3, after 'Schedule 4A,', insert
'in paragraph 1 the definition of "review",'.

No. 45, in page 85, line 51, column 3, at end insert 'Section 164(5)(a).'.

No. 46, in page 87, line 10, leave out '23' and insert '23(1)'.

No. 47, in page 87, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 8,paragraphs 21(1) and 23.'.

No. 48, in page 87, line 39, at end insert—
'1996 c.23. Arbitration Act 1996. In Schedule 3,paragraph 54.'.
—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Clause 81

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 52, line 8, leave out 'sections 50,' and insert '(a) sections'.

No. 33, in page 52, line 8, leave out '77' and insert '79'.

No. 20, in page 52, line 8, after 'this section,' insert 'and
(b) section 50 so far as relating to a sum which is chargeable to tax by virtue of section 313 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,'.ߞ[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Ms Harman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is an important step towards our aim of building a modern, fair and efficient welfare service that commands the support of everyone in society. It lays the foundations for transforming the future delivery of welfare and for eradicating the failures of the past.
The Bill has received rigorous and constructive scrutiny, both in Committee and in today's debates. I am grateful to all the Committee members for their work and, in particular, to the Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). I also thank my ministerial team—the Under-Secretaries of State for Social Security, my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—for the tremendous amount of hard work that they have put into the Bill, taking it through the House thus far.
Today, we have had extensive and wide-ranging debates that have focused on just two clauses: on backdating and lone parents. Perhaps the House will allow me to mention briefly the other 79 clauses in the Bill. Those clauses pave the way for us to modernise the system that we inherited from the last Administration—a confusing system of incomprehensible rules, laborious form filling and complex processes that trap millions of people on benefit who want to work. That system is both unacceptable and unsustainable.
This Government believe that welfare should focus on investing in people's opportunities and success, which means providing an integrated service—a service that concentrates on meeting the needs of those whom it is intended to help, and is not constrained by artificial organisational boundaries. That is better government. It means recognising that individuals' lives do not easily fit into departmental boxes, and working throughout Government making use of new information technology to deliver a complete modern service to the citizen.
Service delivery is central to our approach to welfare reform. Our services must actively help people to move from welfare into work, where they can be much better off than they would ever be on benefits. Our services must be focused on what clients need; they must ensure that help goes to those who need it, not to the fraudsters who would rip off the system; they must be efficient, and offer the best possible deal to clients, taxpayers and our staff. That is what we mean by an active, modern service.
The Bill lays the foundations for the provision of such a service. It paves the way for a modern, integrated service, enabling people to give us information just once in a way that is convenient for them. We shall then be able to advise them how that affects all their dealings with the Department. The Bill will create a much simpler decision-making process, reducing the number of types of decision maker from six to one—who will act on my behalf—and enabling decisions to be presented quickly,

correctly and in a way that is easy to understand. It will enable us to provide a streamlined, straightforward system for claimants to appeal against decisions to an independent tribunal, cutting out unnecessary duplications and frustrating delays.
Not only will my proposals streamline the current process; I will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system through a new Department of Social Security executive agency established for the purpose of improving the administration of appeals. The Bill will also reinforce people's responsibilities in relation to the welfare system by imposing tougher penalties on those who try to evade their responsibility to make national insurance contributions. It will close loopholes exploited by those who seek to save money by doing their employees out of the contributions that are essential to their future pension entitlements. It will also make it easier for employers to pay their fair share by aligning the ways in which certain benefits and expenses are dealt with in the tax and national insurance systems.
The Bill, introduced in our first three months of government, is an important step towards meeting the commitments that we made to the British people in our manifesto. They gave us a strong mandate to reform welfare—to tackle poverty and welfare dependency and to tackle them wisely, extending opportunities to all. We will transform welfare delivery into an active, modern service that meets people's needs and helps them to fulfil their aspirations. The Bill puts in place the building blocks to do just that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: It has been a long evening, and I do not intend to detain the House for longer than necessary. Labour Members will be pleased about that. It has certainly been a long evening for the Secretary of State, but I am intrigued to see that not a single other member of the Cabinet is present to support her after what has clearly been a difficult time for her. When her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of tough decisions, I did not think that he meant this sort of decision.
On Second Reading, I dubbed the Bill the Peter Lilley memorial Bill. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is sitting beside me to re-emphasise that. I am also glad to see that Labour Members are pleased that they are driving through a measure that they opposed throughout their time in opposition.
The Bill clearly reflects the last Government's desire to streamline the benefit system and make it more efficient. That is why, when we were in government, we launched the change programme. Despite that, the Opposition have never offered the Government unconditional support for the Bill. We said that it contained elements that we had not introduced when in government. I shall shortly mention some of those.
Clause 2 provides for some decisions to be made by computer. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spoke about that. The Secretary of State and her team should think carefully about that issue and, as the Bill goes through the other place, they might consider how some of those decisions will be made. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that clause 2, while apparently innocuous in


many ways, would begin to drive a wedge between the concepts of decision and responsibility. He said that while a computer could in an extended sense make a decision, it could not be held responsible in any ordinary or important philosophical or legal sense. The Law Society has also expressed concern. The clause has not been amended, but the Government should think carefully about the words of my hon. Friend and Labour Members should think about how some decisions will be made under the Bill.
Clause 1 proposes the abolition of the independent tribunal service which makes decisions, and we are concerned about that. However, two topics have detained hon. Members, and one of them is the backdating of new benefits, in relation to which we moved a new schedule. Labour Back Benchers did not seem to be especially concerned or pay much attention when we debated that. The Government have said that they are a caring Government, but this measure will adversely affect many vulnerable people. That is made obvious by such groups as Age Concern, the National Council for One Parent Families and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Before the election the Labour party said that it would make a difference and would form a caring Government, but that same Government have added the backdating measure to the Bill that we left behind. It is a mean addition that we did not think was necessary. Our amendment would have helped to change that, but the Government rejected it. Despite what the Secretary of State said about our new schedule and about the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, I urge her to think again. Before the general election, many Labour Members prided themselves on speaking up for widows and war widows. Many such people will be directly affected by the reduction to one month of the time for backdating claims. We should like to have an amendment to the Bill in another place to remove that provision.
The most controversial debate was on new clause 1 and amendment No.1, which sought to correct the breaking by the Secretary of State of every pledge during her time in opposition. When we were in government the Labour Opposition said that they did not believe in what we were doing, that they would not do it, and that it was a principle not worth having. Labour Members told pressure groups and single parents all over the country that they would champion their cause when in government. All that needed to be done was to get Labour into government and it would certainly not impose such legislation. Labour said that if such legislation were already imposed, it would strike it out.
Over the past six or seven months the Government have had many opportunities to stand by the Secretary of State's pre-election pledges, but they have not done so. Even now they do not offer the excuse of principle. They do not say that they believe in the legislation as a means of levelling married couples and lone parents. They say that somehow they were left with a budget problem, but we know that the Prime Minister made it clear just before the election that the existing budgets would have allowed them to drop the legislation and still survive the two-year constraint. They could still do that, but they have decided not to. The fiscal excuse is absolute nonsense, rubbish. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State goes on about it,

but, on her principles, she had every reason to drop the proposals and chose not to do so. That is why she has had a Back-Bench rebellion that is sizeable enough to remind her of the pledges and commitments that she made before the election.
I do not want to dwell too much on family problems, but I suspect that tonight's rebellion is just the beginning. Questions will be asked about why a Government who came to power on a set of promises, turned round and broke every single one of them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Dream on.

Mr. Duncan Smith: It is Labour Members who should dream on, for they will have many nightmares in the next few weeks and months. Even today's editorial in The Times said—[Interruption.] Isn't it wonderful? In opposition and government Labour courts Mr. Murdoch and his friends, but when it is accused of being inconsistent, it does not like it. The Times said:
The trouble comes because Ms Harman's arguments are often either opaque or inconsistent. Unlike the Tories, she is reluctant to make the case that the benefit system should not be loaded in favour of single parenthood".
The Government promised great welfare reforms, but so far they have delivered absolutely nothing. The lauded Green Paper and the important welfare proposals have been non-existent. On Monday, we heard from the Treasury through a planted leak in The Times that it was to make a series of cuts. Treasury-driven cuts: that is the Government's big welfare reform. The Minister of State is completely ruled out and the Secretary of State does not even have any comment to make. No one from the Treasury or from the Cabinet is present tonight.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] I know that pain hurts, so I shall not prolong it too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I do not want to detain Labour Members for too long, because they are in serious pain, and it is better for them to receive medication quickly. The Government have reneged not just on this promise, but on a number of pledges that they made. What we have seen tonight is some of the Labour party waking up to the fact that whatever it promised, whatever it said and whatever it pretended en route to government, it has a bad habit of biting back when it gets into government. This is not a fit Government; it is not even fit to man the Treasury Bench, and I hope that very shortly the public will realise that.

Mr. McNamara: I shall not speak for long, because I had a good opportunity to express my views earlier.
Some of my hon. Friends cheered when they heard the size of the vote for the amendment. I did not cheer, because it is sad that so many of my colleagues felt it necessary to vote against the Government. It is never a happy experience to vote against one's party, particularly when it is in government. I have done so in the past, but it is never an easy decision. We had put so much faith and hope in our Government, but, despite all the splendid measures that have been introduced, we felt let down on this issue. Contrary to all our traditions, we have hit the poorest of the poor. It was not a happy occasion.
Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) tabled an early-day motion to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967. I tabled an amendment to it, which said that I expected Governments, of whatever party, to ensure that women who become pregnant do not feel that the only solution is to have an abortion. I believe that these cuts will put pressure on women, especially women who already have children, to have an abortion. I regret that, because it is appalling. I could have abstained, but I am glad that I voted against this proposal.
I had other reasons for voting against the cut. When I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—she was then the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson—attacking the then Government on the issue, she convinced me of her case. During the general election campaign, I went round and told my constituents, "I am convinced that we will not implement such a cut, and, regardless of whether the Tories win, I will not vote for it. Whatever happens, I will not vote for it. I will vote against it." Today, I have kept my word to my constituents.
Labour Members have been told that we have an inheritance of cash limits from the Tory party. We did not discuss the limits but were told that we have inherited them. It was not an inheritance, though, because the body was not dead when we seized the limits and said that we would implement them. I believed then, as I believe now, that we would come to rue that decision. We are ruing it today. If ever there were a hostage to fortune, which has caused our problems in this debate, it was our decision that we could out-Tory the Tories.
The decision was not a matter of financial prudence. There is scope within the social fund, by making the necessary adjustments, to obtain the money. Further surplus money has been raised in taxation, because unemployment has been falling—but we could have found the money regardless.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because, unlike so many of my hon. Friends, he has not been in the Chamber since 3 pm today hoping to make his point.
We have made ourselves prisoners to undertakings that we will rue, as we have rued the strange decision on income tax. For the life of me, in the past week, I have not been able to believe not only the enormous, atrocious and obscene bonuses given in the City, and that we are not prepared to tax them, but that we are to cut benefits for single mothers. If they go to work, take advantage of all those wonderful schemes and lose their job, they will receive less benefit.
If my constituents come to me, I will tell them, "Weigh very carefully what is involved. I want you to go to work. I want you to be protected. I want you to be independent and to have your pride, but I want you to ensure that your children have food on the table and clothes on their backs."
Some people may say that £5 or £11 is not terribly important. I tell them to go round the charity shops, and to the supermarkets late at night, when bread is sold off cheap. Then they can ask whether that money is really important to single-parent families.

Mr. Kirkwood: We have had a very interesting and dramatic debate, which is what the House is for. I should also like very squarely to tell the Government that if Labour Members have raised dissentient voices, they should be allowed to do so without any type of sanction. To do otherwise would be to deny freedom of speech in the House, to deny hon. Members the right to represent their constituents and to negate the process of parliamentary democracy. Any sanctions taken against any Labour Member in the coming hours or days would be a disgrace, and negate the whole ethos of the House.
The provisions in the latter half of the Bill deal with cuts in benefits and are extremely contentious. I want, however, to deal with the earlier provisions on the modernisation of social security procedures because they are also important and some of them may come back to haunt us.
It was, of course, right to modernise aspects of the system, but some of the new provisions are draconian. The Bill blurs the distinction between the initial decision-making procedure and appellate rights. It also reduces the independent element in the decision-making process. Reducing the powers of the independent appellate bodies is a serious mistake which we make at our peril. The changes may bring about some savings. I suspect, however, that they will be modest and will be achieved at the expense of the poorest in our society.
Why, for example, is it necessary to abolish the chief adjudication officer? The only explanation the Government have given is that he has no resources with which to ensure that his annual reports are enforced. We all know that his annual reports often highlight terrible anomalies in the law and that they can lead to improvements in the standard of decision making.
The Bill, fundamentally, passes all decision-making powers to the Secretary State. Why? The Secretary of State is a Member of the House of Commons. The Benefits Agency officials have taken independent appeal decisions in the past acting as civil servants in an independent system. In future, the Secretary of State will act in her own right. She will not be able to claim independence from the tribunal service. She will be directly held to account in the House of Commons for tribunal decisions taken in her name and we shall not be slow to take up the challenge. We have here a fundamental change to the way in which we do things at the level of appeal tribunals.
The attempts the Secretary of State is making to change the decision-making process will significantly reduce the accountability of independent tribunals and will send a negative message to the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society. There will be inadequate checks on initial decision making which will not be in the interests of those people who appeal. The point has already been made about decisions being made by computer. That is another serious change in social security procedures which I deeply suspect as well.
We are told that agency chief executives will in future have quality control systems in place. I shall believe that when I see it because I do not believe that there will be adequate resources to allow that to happen.
During the passage of the Bill, we have been made aware that the right to an oral appeal hearing has been gradually eroded. That may not be mentioned directly in


the Bill, but under Tory regulations that have not yet been repudiated by the Government, claimants now have to opt for an oral hearing. We all know that many claimants do not turn up for their hearings; the reasons for that are varied and complex. I believe that social security law is so complicated that claimants often give up when they are faced by a mass of Department of Social Security papers. The Bill will mean that claimants will be forced to resort to judicial reviews to protect their own interests.
My final point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] These may be technical but they are important points. The Bill will be likely to fall foul of European law and the European convention on human rights. It is only a matter of time before clauses 26 and 27 are found to be legally wanting. The system that we are establishing in the Bill is essentially flawed. I believe that we shall be forced to return to the provisions in due course in a way that may well further embarrass the Government. They may have to change many of the provisions all over again to get back to the independent system of adjudication appeal that we have enjoyed heretofore.

Mr. Tony Benn: I do not know whether there will be a vote on Third Reading, but if there is I shall vote against the Bill. I should like to tell the House why.
I was elected to the House and took my seat 47 years ago last week. I joined a Parliament that had taken over a Britain that was battered, bombed and bankrupt. That Parliament's first action was to treble the widow's pension from 10 shillings a week to 26 shillings a week. That bankrupt nation introduced a free health service, put me through college without any charge—I had been a wartime airman—and did not have much of a problem with the welfare bill when unemployment was so low because we were building houses and hospitals and recruiting teachers and nurses.
I was a Minister in subsequent Labour Governments that brought pensions into line with earnings. I am very proud of that. As Secretary of State for Energy, I also introduced a scheme to ensure that everyone on benefit had a 25 per cent. cut in their winter fuel bills, regardless of the temperature. All that is dismissed as old Labour, but I am very proud of it. The arguments for the Bill, which have been well rehearsed, run counter to the beliefs that I have and that the Labour party had—the beliefs that brought me into Parliament and led me to join the Labour party on my 17th birthday in 1942.
I must say, very respectfully, that the Government have not taken a hard decision; they have taken the easiest decision possible, hammering the poorest people who have no bargaining power. They have ring-fenced the richest people, promising them that there will be no increase in income tax. Anyone who has had experience of single parents—up to a couple of thousand have been to my surgeries over the years—knows that the children of split families are affected by their circumstances. They want their mother or father close to them when the other partner leaves. We are going back to the Victorian concept of the deserving poor, who want work, and the undeserving poor, who prefer to look after their children.
I am opposed to the philosophy of the Bill. Every argument that I have heard from the Front Bench has convinced me more and more that this is a bad measure.
I do not want to detain the House for too long. Another reason why I shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading if there is a Division is that I have also read about the next items on the agenda—tuition fees, the possibility that disability benefit may be targeted or that the pensioners' link with earnings may not be restored.
I have found today's debate fascinating, because politics has come back to the Chamber of the House of Commons. Some of us, including me—I make nothing of that—want hon. Members to say the same in opposition and in government. We want some attempt to be made to assess the rights and wrongs of matters, rather than decisions being taken on the basis of an economic analysis founded on some requirement to be competitive and productive. The cuts that the Cabinet made 21 years ago cost us the 1979 election. Denis Healey, who is an honest man, has admitted that those cuts were unnecessary.
I do not ask anyone else who has not had my experiences to follow me into the Lobby if there is a vote, but I shall vote against the Bill, because this is what Parliament is about. If we separate this place from the concerns outside, there will be a price not just for the party of which I am proud to be a member, but for the reputation of the parliamentary process, as people become more and more despairing because their concerns are not being listened to.

Mr. Salmond: I had not intended to say anything on Third Reading—today's events speak for themselves—until the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he would have to advise a constituent carefully on whether to move into employment under the circumstances set out by the Government. I watched the Secretary of State for Social Security say, "Shame." If there is any shame in today's proceedings, it lies not on the Back Benches, but on the Front Benches.
The point is crystal clear. If someone loses a job or takes seasonal employment, he or she will return to benefit at a lower rate than that on which he or she started. How can any Member of this place, given the salaries that we earn, do other than advise a constituent in such circumstances to think extremely carefully about moving into employment? We would not be doing our duty if we did anything other than give such advice. If there is any shame in our proceedings this evening, it lies not with the hon. Member for Hull, North but with the Secretary of State.
As an observer of the Labour party's problems on this issue, I do not understand why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—those who are pulling the strings—have made a stand. I am told that the stand has been taken so that the Government can appear macho to the City. Apparently it is important to show the fiscal rectitude of the new Labour Government. If it is important to show fiscal rectitude and strength, why not pick on someone who is strong rather than on someone who is weak? There is no strength to be demonstrated in picking on single parents, who are one of the poorest sections of the community. Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember the words of Zsa Zsa Gabor, who said, "Macho men ain't mucho." Those words apply to the Government's campaign against single parents.
In 1992 the Conservative party came to office with a considerable majority. Within a few months, however, it ran into a series of economic circumstances that were largely of its own making. The result was called black Wednesday, and that destroyed the economic credibility of the Conservative party, a blow from which it never recovered. I wonder, when we look back on today's proceedings, whether they might not be seen as new Labour's black Wednesday, which destroyed the social credibility of the new Labour Government. When all is said and done, it will be a pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Bill, which continues to include cuts in lone parent benefit entitlement, is shabby, vindictive, unprincipled and unsupportable. I know that that is right because those are the words that we used when the issue was first raised by the motley crew of the Conservative Government when they mooted the cuts in lone parent benefit entitlement.
If the House has any doubts about that, it had a timely reminder from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman when he repeated the taunts that we heard in Committee. For the Conservatives, this is the Peter Lilley Memorial Bill. The Government should have taken heed of the final warning when the Tories joined Labour in the Lobby in support of a Tory-designed measure designed only to make the poor poorer.
I will take up the four shabby myths that we on the Labour Benches tried to persuade ourselves represented the pretext on which the Bill should be supported. It was argued that somehow we had a mandate or an obligation to make the cuts. It was said that we had to make hard choices, including the cuts. It was said also that lone parents would not be affected by the cuts and, indeed, that they would be better off as a result of the introduction of welfare to work.
Labour has never had a mandate to make the poor poorer. It has never had a mandate to make the poorest of the poor, children in lone-parent households, poorer still. Labour fought the last election by attacking the Tory record, which was that one in three children lived in a poverty-stricken household. We knew that that was the legacy that we would inherit. We also knew that we did not have a mandate to perpetuate it. We certainly never had a mandate to make it worse.
That is not a hard choice. It is not a hard choice to pick on the weakest in the playground and kick buckets out of them. It is not a hard choice to pick on the most vulnerable and insecure. Hard choices are made when we are prepared to take on people bigger and tougher than we are who are doing despicable things. Those are the hard choices that people have to make in Parliament.
I want to put the whole thing into context. We are told that the saving is a £60 million necessity, perhaps rising to £400 million over four years. But in the week leading up to the debate we have made other choices, too—presumably still within the spending limits that we inherited.
We made a choice to sign a cheque for £1 billion to bail out those lone mothers the Korean bankers and speculators who were playing fast and loose on the streets of the casino economies in south-east Asia.
We have also given a substantial handout to another group of welfare dependants. I am grateful to the Paymaster General for spelling that out in the Financial Times on Saturday, when he wrote:
the corporation tax changes from 1999 that Gordon Brown, the chancellor, announced in his pre-Budget report have a net present value to companies which totals more than £9 billion".
Those, too, are welfare matters. They are part of another dependency culture, and we should question whether we have an obligation to foster, nurture and support that culture. It is highly questionable whether it is the role of a Labour Government to encourage that sort of welfare dependency.
Furthermore, we are putting through the £60 million of "necessary cuts" at a time when huge unexpected receipts are flowing into the Treasury. No sense of economic compulsion drives us to make this decision.
The key point in this debate was made in an intervention when my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) why, if he felt so strongly about the cut, he had not voted against it on 22 July. I caution other hon. Members tonight: when subsequent cuts are suggested, whether in housing benefit, disability benefits, the taxing of child benefit or industrial injury benefits, and they choose to say, "There is a principle that I want to make a stand on," the same question will be asked of them. Members will be asked, "How did you vote on 10 December? What point of principle have you discovered now that you could not find then?"
The reason why it has become so important for the Government to make a stand on a trivial amount of money is to break the spirit of principled opposition to the idea of Labour Members hitting the poor. Members on our side of the House will have to reflect carefully on that thought for a long time to come.
It is untrue to say that lone parents will not be affected by this cut. We have been trying to run with contradictory arguments. We say that welfare to work will be their salvation and encourage them to find work. Yet, as many hon. Members have pointed out, those who go through the new deal programme to find work will discover that there are more people chasing jobs than there are jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) asked a telling question earlier: what will happen to women who believe us and go through the new deal programme only to find when they come out at the end that the "new deal" is no deal and there are no jobs for them? Will they go back to the same benefit level as they had before? The answer is no.
Even if people find jobs, what will happen when they are ill? When someone goes back, what will happen to the mortgage interest protection that she had before? It disappears. Who will then explain the repossessions that will follow when people have to go back onto benefits worse off than they were when they started?
Welfare to work will work only if we can deliver permanent, secure, well paid jobs. The question that we are refusing to answer, but which almost all our constituents are asking, is this: if this is to be a real opportunity to change people's lives and to make the difference between a cruel Tory Government and a Labour Government who will help people out of poverty,


where is the work? Employment Service agencies will talk a lot about employability but not a lot about employment. Yet that is how we shall be judged.
The figure of lone parents being £50 a week better off in work which was produced by the Secretary of State was Arthur Daley off-the-back-of-a-lorry statistics. Many Members have already gone into detail on this, but in any statistical appraisal one cannot include all women to define an average. The example that I would offer is Nicola Horlick. If she happened to be between her million-pound-a-year jobs, saw the new deal as a great opportunity and wanted to be at the front of the queue for six months of canal dredging to improve her employability, I suspect that at the end of it she would not be looking for outwork or piecework at 10p or 20p an hour of the kind that women in our communities still face. To include the economically powerful in an average is dishonest to the economically powerless, yet these are the vast majority of the women whom we shall be seeking to draw into the new deal proposals.
We also cannot assume that there are minimal child care costs, or ignore the loss of passported benefits. We cannot bank on pay levels that are non-existent for most of the women who will be affected by this measure. I was grateful to receive a copy of a letter from the managing director of a firm in Nottingham to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The director wanted to re-employ a woman who had worked for him some years before. He said:
I am keen to re-employ a former employee … Her child has just started school and she has approached me to offer employment of 20 hours per week … This I am happy to do at £4.32 per hour.
He then went on to work through the financial consequences of employing her, and said that what horrified him was that she would be worse off by £17.57 and
what is most alarming to me, potentially even more worse off if she was off work to look after her child".
This is someone who wants to take a lone parent back into work but in doing so could only make her poorer.
I did some work with a group called Home-start which works with and supports lone-parent families in Nottingham. It calculated the break-even point for women moving from benefits to work. The figures in terms of replacement costs ranged from an average of £114 a week for a woman on benefits to a need to earn £239.50 when they are not. That was to break even—£6 an hour after tax. I would dearly love to see the offers of jobs that they might receive. When I asked the women what prospects they thought they had of receiving that amount, they laughed—they thought it was like Alice in Wonderland.
One woman said to me that if anyone there said they were receiving that money, they would know what work they were doing and what the game was—they would be on the game. The reality is that, for many women, a job providing a wage on which they could survive is not one that they could do legitimately. [Interruption.] Those who say that that is despicable should look at the path to "Wisconsin welfare" and ask how easy it has been for Wisconsin to drive women off the benefits system, where they could draw benefits after 12 weeks.
The one statistic that people involved in Wisconsin do not want to acknowledge is the 20 per cent. increase in arrests on charges of prostitution. The House may not like

it, but there are people on both sides of the Chamber who, if that happened here, would be screaming blue murder about the quality of parenting.
This is the issue which has fallen off the agenda in this debate. Where does parenting fit in? Where do the rights of children fit into the sense of a civilised society, in which child welfare is part of the process of nurturing and valuing the generations yet to follow us into adulthood?
I am told that we live in an age in which politics is also the personal, and I want to make a personal statement. I am the eldest of seven children. I felt privileged in my childhood, because although we did not have much money we had a lot of love and support from a large extended family. At different times of our lives, however four of the seven children have been lone parents, whether as a result of death, divorce or the breakdown of a relationship. In each of those circumstances, the most important consideration was this—how do you minimise the damage to the children. That was all that mattered. All the rallying round was to try to put the children first.
Now we are faced with a set of proposals which suggest that the only way to confer dignity on parents is to send the lone parent out to work, forgetting the trauma and disorientation and everything else that their children have to work through. The House is saying that this will be the parents' salvation, but in years to come children will not thank us for this measure—they will brutally condemn us for the cynicism and cowardice that underpins it.
During the last week the press have been going around asking what the numbers will be. They saw a rebellion in the offing and a conspiracy in progress. Members have not been able to answer, because it has not unfolded in that way: people have been driven not by conspiracy but by conscience.
We are told that this is a great time for naming and shaming. Those of us who have voted against the cut in lone-parent benefits will have our names recorded in Hansard, but the reasons behind this will not be registered. For the record, I was driven to vote against the cuts because I am ashamed that a Labour Government should invite us to go down a path that was always cruel, mean-minded, vindictive and utterly unnecessary.
This Bill, the Peter Lilley Memorial Bill, should have been put in the dustbin when it was first mooted by the Tories. It should have been consigned to the dustbin of history tonight when the Tories trailed their poisoned prejudices into the Lobby to support the Government. That, more than anything else, should have told us that we were wrong. Even at that stage we should have had the courage not to betray our children and our consciences but to get out of the Lobby that the Tories had gone into.

Mrs. Fyfe: I do not want to let tonight go by without congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise). She spoke for real Labour, and party members and supporters throughout the country will be grateful for that and derive hope from it.
Scottish Members who were here before the general election may recall, as I do, a time when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), came to Scotland to address a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on benefits and he was roasted; he was white and shaking after the ferocity of the attack on him by nationalist, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, who all got stuck in.
Well pardon me, but I assumed that that was a guarantee that we would not continue with the same policy and implement these cuts. Some hon. Members have said that none of this was in the manifesto. I remember that the manifesto said that we would cut the benefits bill, but I assumed that that meant that the bill would reduce as we got people back into work. I never thought for one moment that it meant that we would cut the bill by reducing the payments to lone parents. I am opposing the measure in the Lobby tonight because, in my innocence, I relayed my assumptions to my constituents and urged them to vote accordingly.
I would also complain that, while we are expected to have expertise in literary analysis to divine the innermost meanings of any words in the statements, there is a lack of numeracy in all this. The Government say that people will be £50 better off on average. That obviously means—this has not yet been pointed out in the debate so far—that some people will be far less than £50 better off if £50 is the average.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I am sad that it has come to a vote against my own party tonight. I am proud of a great deal that the Government have done since the general election. I am glad to be a member of the Labour party, but I cheered tonight because I was glad that many Labour Members had refused to be won over by simple promises of a review. Ever since July, when we were first alerted to the issue, there have been opportunities to have a proper look at it, but they were not taken. The party conference wanted to discuss the issue and was not allowed to do so.
So I end simply with this appeal. The Bill has gone through tonight and the cut will be made, but at least the Government claim that they will review it. I hope that it will be an honest and thoroughgoing effort and not just warm words that mean nothing. I am sure that there are plenty of us here who will ensure that the review means something. We will not allow ourselves to be put off. The party agreed in October to have a new system of making decisions. So far, that has not come into effect—but tonight a lot of us have become determined that it will.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I know that many colleagues want to go home, so I shall be brief, but I want to say something about my position. As a result of the debate, I have taken decisions which will result in my losing my job as a parliamentary private secretary. I want to make it clear why I have done that. It is something that I very much regret having to do. I cannot in all conscience support one of the clauses of the Bill—the clause that cuts single-parent benefits, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said had been the main issue of debate today. I hope that the Government will look at what happened and how this problem arose.
The problem did not arise tonight. Much of the debate tonight has focused on some cuts that are not in the Bill. It has focused on cuts in income support and housing benefit which were contained in regulations that were never debated on the Floor of the House. I remind the House that the regulations were laid before the House on 30 July—the day before the summer recess. It was the last day on which there was any real business in the House. That is an old trick which we saw from the Tory

Government many times in the past few years. They often laid regulations on the last day of business. The result is that consultation and discussion within the parliamentary Labour party never took place in a genuine way on the regulations or the Bill. That is one of the reasons why anger has built up towards tonight. I hope that the Government will remember and learn from that when they seek to make changes in the future.
The defenders of the main changes in the Bill, and the one change that has been the great focus, have talked about work. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who led for the Opposition on Third Reading, talked about that. I will accept no lectures from him or any other Conservative Member about Governments sticking to their promises. We have seen enough broken promises in the past 18 years to last us a lifetime. When Labour made promises and we all went out for the election on 1 May and talked about welfare to work, getting people back into work and the need to deliver child care, we meant what we said—every one of us meant it. Those are promises that we need to keep and I believe that we will keep them. The difficulty is that those are promises to put in place things that are not currently in place and will not be in place in April or June next year when the benefit reforms take effect.
I accept the need for reforms of the benefits system—we all know about the poverty trap—but we do not need this reform. What is going to happen to those who are trying to get work? We all want people to get work, but no one could believe that every lone parent who wants to get work, either now or on 1 April or 1 June next year, will be able to do that. It is simply inconceivable that the jobs will be there at the time, so what will happen to the people who do not manage to get work?
We have been told that only new claimants will be affected, although some people's status will change and they will become new claimants. I have one simple question and I cannot understand why I have not yet heard an answer to it: what will be so different about someone who is a new claimant on 5 April, compared with someone who is a new claimant on 6 April next year, when the income support regulations change? What will be the difference between a new claimant the day before the Bill comes into force and one the day after? Apparently, the answer is that one of those two people claiming on consecutive days will have to live on a few pounds less than the other. That is what Ministers are saying in making these changes.
Admittedly, in the beginning, new claimants will have a slight advantage in terms of the new deal and welfare to work, but by October next year every lone parent—including current claimants—will be in the same position. Are we saying that current claimants get too much? If not, how can we possibly say that a new claimant in exactly the same position next year will be able to manage on less? I have heard no explanation of that whatsoever, because no one could possibly pretend that there will not be new claimants next year who will be affected by the provisions in the Bill and by the new regulations made earlier this year. There are bound to be. I do not have a problem with welfare to work in terms of its aims, but I do have a problem in terms of the timing. Although I believe that we can achieve the child care, training and jobs that we want to be in place, that will not happen overnight and they will not be in place by the time the changes take effect.
We have been presented with a false choice in the debate; that choice states that people can have either welfare to work or benefits—that is all that is available. Earlier today, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister talked about the changes that we have already made to Tory priorities. We are not bound and we never have been bound by Tory priorities—we did not inherit anything that is binding. I hope that in a few months' time the Secretary of State will not be having to explain to people who have reluctantly supported her today that there was money in the system, but that that money was not spent.
I perfectly understand that hard decisions have to be made by Governments and I accept that some of those decisions might result in some people being hurt and losing financially. That is the nature of hard decisions, but I cannot accept that the casualties of those decisions—even if they turn out to be few in number, as some believe—will be some of the poorest people in society. People outside will not understand that. Earlier this evening, hon. Members said that we should remember the big picture, but I am afraid that decisions such as the one before us tonight will start to cause cracks in that picture. Once that happens, if we are not careful, the big picture could fall apart.
I greatly regret the position in which I and many of my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party find ourselves tonight.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I will detain the House for two minutes.
First, I pay tribute to the former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), to the parliamentary private secretaries, and to those Labour Members who have been willing to vote according to their consciences and their beliefs. [Interruption.] Secondly, I represent the same borough as the Secretary of State for Social Security; my constituency is adjacent to hers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The House must come to order. There are far too many private conversations going on in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Hughes: As I said, I represent the same borough as the right hon. Lady. It is one of the two local authorities in England with the highest number of lone-parent families—four out of 10 families in our borough are single-parent families. I just do not believe, and nor will they, that in a borough which is also among the 20 boroughs with the highest unemployment rates in Britain, those parents will have a chance to go back to work in the future. To take from them what they have, against the promise of something that they may never have, is not a fair deal for them.
Thirdly, it would have been far more honourable had the Government been honest and, rather than claiming that what they said before the election and what they are saying now is the same, had admitted that they had changed their plans. People just do not accept that the words of opposition are consistent with the words of government. That undermines government and undermines this place.
When it comes to the big choices in politics, we must choose whether to defend middle England, middle Wales, middle Scotland, or middle Northern Ireland, the advantaged or the disadvantaged. The hard choice in politics is always to defend the disadvantaged and to fight for them, thereby risking the wrath of the advantaged when they sometimes have to pay the price for that decision.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr, Deputy Speaker. Is it not a long-standing parliamentary convention that when a Minister is defending a particularly unpopular Government policy and is embattled on a major matter, the Prime Minister—and, if there are financial aspects, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—come to support that Minister on the Front Bench? Is it not a sad departure from that convention that the Secretary of State for Social Security has been left so friendless on the Front Bench tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 58.

Division No. 116]
[12.1 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Alexander, Douglas
Casale, Roger



Cawsey,Ian


Allen, Graham
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Church, Ms Judith


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Banks, Tony



Barron Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)



Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Battle, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beard, Nigel
Clelland, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coaker, Vernon


Begg, Miss Anne
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bell Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Colman, Tony



Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corston, Ms Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John



Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Boateng, Paul



Borrow, David
Dalyell, Tarn


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Denham, John


(Dunfermline E)
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drew, David



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Edwards, Huw


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline






Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Foulkes, George
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr lan
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lock, David


Goggins, Paul
Love, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCartney, lan (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grocott, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Grogan, John
McFall, John


Gunnell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
Mclsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mandelson, Peter


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marek, Dr John


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meale, Alan


Home Robertson, John
Merron, Gillian


Hood, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Hoon, Geoffrey
Milbum, Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


lllsley, Eric
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


lngram, Adam
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Osborne, Ms Sandra


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pike, Peter L


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Khabra, Piara S
Radice, Giles


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff





Rooney, Terry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Roy, Frank
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Ms Joan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sawford, Phil
Timms, Stephen


Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy


Shipley, Ms Debra
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (lslington S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Watts, David


Snape, Peter
White,Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Wills, Michael


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wilson, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
McDonnell, John


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brake, Tom
Moore, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Paisley, Rev Ian


Chidgey, David
Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cotter, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Salmond, Alex



Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Stunell, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Swinney, John


Feam, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Thompson, William


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Gorrie, Donald
Wallace, James


Grant, Bemie
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Welsh, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Mr. Adrian Sanders.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With the permission of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you took the motions separately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take them separately.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

BROADCASTING

That the draft Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November. be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) (National Health Service Trusts) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2763), dated 20th November 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COPYRIGHT

That the draft Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EMPLOYMENT LAW

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10230/97, on a proposal for a directive on part-time work, and European Community Document No. 10975/97, Parts A and B, on proposals for directives extending the European Works Councils Directive and the Parental Leave Directive to the United Kingdom; and supports the Government's view that these proposals will contribute to a flexible labour market based on partnership between employers and employees and decent minimum standards at work.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 18.

Division No. 117]
[12.20 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barren, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Begg, Miss Anne


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Baker, Norman
Betts, Clive


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Blears, Ms Hazel


Banks, Tony
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul





Borrow, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria



Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gardiner, Barry


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Goggins, Paul


Burnett, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burstow, Paul
Gorrie, Donald


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grant, Bernie


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harris, Dr Evan



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann '
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, lain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John(Copeland)
Hoyle, Lindsay



Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna(Perth)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Doran, Frank



Drew, David
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)


Edwards, Huw



Efford, Clive
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Fatchett, Derek
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fisher, Mark
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)






Keetch, Paul
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lady man, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Leslie, Christopher
Rendel, David


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lock, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sawford, Phil


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Shipley, Ms Debra


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mclsaac, Shona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary



McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mandelson, Peter
Spellar, John


Marek, Dr John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michael, Alun
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stringer, Graham


Milbum. Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Moffatt, Laura
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Swinney, John


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Trickett, Jon


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Truswell, Paul


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dennis (Wolvem'ton SE)


Oaten, Mark
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul


Osbome, Ms Sandra
Vaz, Keith


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David





Webb, Steve
Wood, Mike


White Brian
Woolas, Phil


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm



Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Paterson, Owen


Chope, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Swayne, Desmond


Duncan Smith, lain
Syms, Robert


Fabricant, Michael
Walter, Robert


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Fraser, Christopher
Tellers for the Noes:


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mr. David Maclean and


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Peter Luff.

Questions accordingly agreed to

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

AGENDA 2000: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to structural and cohesion policy; and supports the Government's aim that the reformed Funds should take account of the United Kingdom's regional interests and be fair to the United Kingdom in relation to other Member States, and that the reforms should make the Funds simpler, more efficient, affordable and durable.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the advice and view of the Speaker of the House of Commons that, when a Division is called, Tellers should be provided? On numerous occasions, has not Madam Speaker frowned on the type of practice that we have seen in the past half hour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I can say only that the Chair has observed the rules of the House. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I have witnessed a serious infringement of hon. Members' rights to bring their constituents' concerns to the attention of the senior member of the Government. Earlier this evening, in the Lobby, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) tried to approach the Prime Minister and was physically restrained by Labour Members. He was trying to perform his duty as a Member of Parliament. Will you please bring the matter to the attention of Madam Speaker?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please be seated, as I have not yet dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)—which was not a matter for the Chair. I am also quite sure that the


hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is capable of raising issues affecting his constituents in other ways.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Further to that point of order," but it was not a point of order. I therefore hope that he will not continue.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a further point of order. If what my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said is correct, there has been an assault by Labour Members on another hon. Member. That is a matter not only for Madam Speaker but for the Serjeant at Arms, because a criminal offence has been committed in the House. I therefore ask you urgently to refer the matter to the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), and I ask you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take no further points of order on that matter. I control what happens in the Chamber. I call the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to present his petition.

Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is not a repeat of what we have already had.

Mr. Howarth: Madam Speaker is always telling hon. Members that she believes that her duty, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of hon. Members, and especially the rights of Back Benchers. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in control of the situation in the Chamber. I have given a ruling on the matter that was raised, and it was a good ruling.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Mr. George Atkinson

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I seek leave to present a petition from Mrs. Hélène Atkinson, whose husband, Mr. George Atkinson, has been imprisoned without charge in Dubai for nine months. The 2,909 petitioners are not satisfied that enough is being done to secure Mr. Atkinson's release. Wherefore, the petitioners pray that this honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to work for the release of Mr. George Atkinson.

To lie upon the Table.

University College (Cornwall)

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I wish to present a petition from the people of Cornwall—in response to an overwhelming demand, on both academic and economic grounds—for a university college in Cornwall. Cornwall once had its own university college, and it now demands that that need be met, not through distance learning but through a properly resourced university campus.
The petition states:
The petition of the people of Cornwall declares that a new University College is needed for Cornwall. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to address the need for a University College based in Cornwall.
In the past few weeks, the petition has been signed by 3,158 people in west Cornwall.

To lie upon the Table.

Local Government Finance (Dorset)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the local government grant settlement as it affects Dorset and, in particular, council tax payers living in the borough of Christchurch and the East Dorset district in my constituency. I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), for Mid—Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) are here to support me because these issues affect their constituents as well as mine.
I shall go into the detailed figures later. The headline figures mean that unless a miracle happens and the Government alter their provisional grant announcement, a band D council tax payer in Christchurch will pay £100.25 more council tax next year—an increase of more than 15 per cent. A council tax payer in East Dorset will pay £98.72 more—an increase of 14.5 per cent. Those are truly staggering increases and they will require householders to make deep cuts in their other expenditure. Increases at five times the rate of inflation are totally unacceptable. This is obviously the real face of new Labour. The extra burdens are coupled with what we now know to be the highest mortgage interest rates for five years.
If the increases in council tax were intended to pay for a locally determined commensurate increase in services, they might be defended by those who support local accountability, but the increases result from a 1.5 per cent. increase in the budgets of East Dorset district and Christchurch borough, a 3.5 per cent. increase in county council expenditure and a 4.2 per cent. increase in police expenditure. It is no wonder that the Government are convicted on the charge of forcing council tax payers to pay more for less.
It is impossible in a short Adjournment debate to go into all the detail that councillors and others would wish. In recognition of that, I am grateful that the Minister has agreed that he will meet a deputation of my constituents in East Dorset and Christchurch and representatives from Dorset county council to go into more detail on the issues I am raising. In recognition of his courtesy, I shall try to ensure that all the groups come to see him at the same time.
In seeking to understand this year's local government grant settlement, the expression "pork barrel" comes very much to mind. "Pork barrel" is an American term applied to legislators who give to their political friends and take away from their political enemies to maintain popularity with their own party. What other explanation can there be for the fact that East Dorset district council suffers the largest percentage reduction in grant of any district council as a result of changes in the formula for allocation, otherwise known as the methodology, while the Prime Minister's district council of Sedgefield gains 14.6 per cent., the second highest gain in the country?
I could not agree—my constituents could not agree either—with the Deputy Prime Minister when he said that the
new measures of neediness … are a clear improvement".— [Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 160.]
They are not a clear improvement. From talking to the Minister earlier, I am not sure that they are even clear.
I hope that the Minister will explain the Government's decision to allocate East Dorset only £68.25 per head grant next year, which is the fourth lowest grant per head of resident population in the country. The year after, the situation will be even worse as the full impact of the change in methodology bites, forcing the council tax up a further 10 per cent. for only 1.5 per cent. in increased expenditure.
If the Minister visited Dorset and drove from Verwood in my constituency to Blandford Forum in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, I would defy him to justify how it could be fair that a resident in Blandford Forum received 26 per cent. more grant per head than a resident in Verwood. If, instead of travelling to North Dorset, the Minister travelled to Christchurch, he would find that the Standard spending assessment per head was 28 per cent. higher than in East Dorset.
There is something peculiar about that. I hope that the Minister will concede that, on any objective basis, the differences are anomalous and indefensible. Councils comprising urban fringes with large rural hinterlands seem to be losing out particularly under the methodology. The consequence is that if East Dorset increases its budget by 1.5 per cent., its council tax will go up by 13.76 per cent.
My constituents in Christchurch have also been dealt a cruel blow. Christchurch's SSA per head is going down by 2.8 per cent., from £90 to £88, as a result of changes to the methodology. The consequences of that are dire. The council has already implemented £100,000 of savings for this year and approved £257,000 of savings for next year. It will have to make £130,000 of additional savings to keep within its cap, which permits an increase of only 1.5 per cent. in budgeted expenditure—just £57,000. The Government's settlement will result in band D council tax in Christchurch going up by 17.37 per cent. next year, from £71.67 to £84.12, for a 1.5 per cent. budget increase.
In comparison with East Dorset and Christchurch, Dorset county council has done well. Its adjusted SSA has gone up by 3 per cent.— £6.167 millionx2014;to £224.031 million. As the population has also increased by 0.8 per cent., the SSA per head has gone up by only 2.2 per cent. and is still £40 per head lower than the average for English counties.
Dorset county council has also suffered a 50 per cent. greater blow than the shire county average, losing 1.3 per cent. of its SSA because of methodology changes. Dorset is most unfairly hit by the Government's fiddle to the SSA for capital financing. If, as spendthrift, debt-ridden Labour councils have long hoped, the Government are intent on bailing them out of the consequences of their profligacy by giving them extra grant towards the cost of those debts, that should not be at the expense of prudent authorities. However, that is what is happening. The reduction in the control total and the scaling factor from 85 to 78 per cent. will result in Dorset county council losing £855,000— £5.70 per band D council tax payer.
The consequence of the settlement for Dorset county council is that increasing its budget by 3.6 per cent. to the capping limit will necessitate a band D council tax increase of about 10 per cent., from £556 to £610. However, that is not the end of the story. This year, all Dorset council tax payers benefit from a special reorganisation grant worth £26 at band D. The additional costs for Dorset resulting from Bournemouth and Poole becoming unitary are £78 per head at band D. That burden has not disappeared. It should have been reduced by the county council, but it is still significant.
The Government could give immediate and direct help to Dorset council tax payers by paying the transitional grant for a second year, as all the group leaders and my hon. Friends have argued in letters to the Secretary of State. The Minister shakes his head, but we have taken encouragement from the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that £130 million will be allocated for the transitional costs of local government reorganisation. On the basis of the present plans, he thinks it possible that less provision will be needed for that purpose. The Deputy Prime Minister said that any surplus would be added to the total of revenue support grant. I submit that it would be fairer to give £4 million of that to Dorset.
That brings me to the area cost adjustment. During the latter days of the general election campaign in April, the current Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—was asked whether he would reform the area cost adjustment. He told the Cambridge Evening News:
We will review the Area Cost Adjustment in time for the next financial year.
The right hon. Gentleman added that, in relation to Cambridgeshire,
changes in line with the recent Elliot review would bring the county an extra £10 million.
The right hon. Gentleman, by those words, raised expectations and led people to believe in Cambridge and elsewhere that were a Labour Government to be elected, the Elliot review of the area cost adjustment would be implemented this year. If the Elliot review recommendations had been implemented this year, Dorset would have benefited by about £4 million, about £25 per charge payer. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that that is a similar sum to the transitional reduction grant that the Government are proposing to withdraw from Dorset this year. That grant was given by the Conservative Government in response to representations that were made in Dorset.
Honour could be satisfied by keeping the grant for one more year in the expectation that the Government would then honour their pre-election pledge to implement the results of the Elliot review.
The final element in the council tax bill for my constituents is the precept from the Dorset police. The maximum spending power permitted by the Government for next year is £73.720 million, increased from an equivalent figure of £70.771 million for the current year. The police think that even expenditure at that cap will not be enough, so there is a fear that the precept will be raised from £63.59 to £71.37, an increase of more than 12 per cent., with only a 4.17 per cent. increase in expenditure.
The Government's confidence trick of forcing up council tax is clear from the figures for the Dorset police authority. Raising the expenditure to the cap would cost £2.949 million, and only 27 per cent. of that would be funded by the national exchequer, the other 73 per cent. coming from local taxpayers. That is why, for a modest increase in contribution from the Government, local taxpayers are being expected to pay £3 for every £1 that the Government pay.
The Deputy Prime Minister said when introducing the grant settlement for next year that when Labour was elected on 1 May it was declared that it was time to bury the hatchet. The right hon. Gentleman did not say where he was going to bury it. I hope that tonight the Minister will allay the fears of Dorset people that the Deputy Prime Minister's hatchet is targeted at Dorset in a vindictive vendetta against Dorset people who did not vote Labour in the general election.
I am conscious that in my constituency there was the second lowest Labour vote in the country. It was less than 7 per cent., and significantly less than in 1992. If we have a Government who are handing out money to their friends and withdrawing it from their enemies, we have exposed an example tonight. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay our concerns. From the examples that I have given, it is clear that charge payers in my constituency are being condemned to pay 15 per cent. more council tax next year for worse services.
Earlier this month, the Minister for Local Government and Housing told Radio Kent that if council tax increases by more than 7 per cent., the council concerned will be failing in its duty. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether he is prepared to make the same statement in respect of Dorset. If the council tax increases in Dorset by more than 7 per cent., will the hon. Gentleman consider that the county council and the district councils have failed in their duty? I hope that he will answer that question.
In announcing this year's settlement, the Government were guilty of a cruel confidence trick on my constituents. The Deputy Prime Minister promised that standard spending assessments would be fairer, and that spending could increase by 3.5 per cent., leading to a council tax increase of only 7 per cent. Yet SSA per head in East Dorset has fallen by 6.7 per cent. and in Christchurch by 2.8 per cent., and even for the county council it has increased by only 2.2 per cent.
We are getting mixed messages from the Government. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has told me in a letter that I should demand that Dorset county council pass on its full SSA increase to schools, despite the fact that it is already spending 6 per cent. above its SSA. The Deputy Prime Minister, however, says that the changes in the SSAs will have a large impact on council tax levels in some authorities if they do not adjust their spending accordingly.
In other words, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is saying that the SSAs must go towards additional spending by the council, whereas the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that because grant has been taken away from Dorset, the council's expenditure should be reduced accordingly. Those two messages are incompatible.
It seems that the Government recognise that local authorities need to spend more money, but they do not have the courage to provide the money themselves.


Instead they are transferring the burden to council tax payers. This is a massive council tax increase—a tax increase by another name—and my constituents feel that they are being unfairly punished. I hope that the consultation is a real one, and that when it is over we shall find that there is more grant for Dorset than it is to receive under the present proposals.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has secured a useful opportunity to discuss our proposals for the financing of local authorities' revenue expenditure in the coming financial year. He has rightly focused on matters of concern to his area of Dorset, which is the subject of the debate. He ranged rather widely, and we got as far as Cambridge; none the less, I shall focus specifically on the Dorset area.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman at the outset that his allegations of a vendetta against any particular area are totally unfounded. Charges of pork barrel politics come ill from a party that was renowned for rigging the standard spending assessment arrangements to ensure such curious results as the fact that leafy Kingston upon Thames was deemed as deprived as Barnsley. That was the previous Government's record, and it is not surprising that it provoked considerable criticism.
We have committed ourselves to a fair distribution of Government grant to local authorities, and the provisional settlement announced last week is a start in achieving that goal. It is better, in cash terms, than many authorities must have expected on the basis of last year's plans. It is also fairer in its distribution, and reinforces local accountability by giving local authorities more discretion over local spending decisions.
There will, of course, be some authorities that are disappointed with the measures we have taken to ensure a fairer distribution of grant, and I can understand the concerns of the authorities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman that have had a reduction in their standard spending assessments. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the authorities in the Dorset area around his constituency have been adversely affected by the changes. I do not seek to hide from that fact in any way, and I shall return to some of the reasons for it in a moment. We inherited tight spending plans, which meant that we had to make tough decisions if we intended to ensure a fairer settlement.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, education is the top priority for the Government and for the nation. That is where we have concentrated the new money for local authorities. Schools faced real problems after years of cuts and retrenchment, and we therefore made available an extra £835 million for revenue expenditure in English schools in 1998–99. There will also be £662 million of provision for local authorities for the education of children under five years old, following the abolition of the nursery vouchers scheme.
Adjusted for changes in funding mechanisms and in local government functions, that means an increase over 1997–98 in total standard spending of £1.78 billion, or 3.8 per cent. That is expected to be 1 per cent. above inflation, thereby allowing an increase in real terms to reflect our key policy priorities. It also allows

£1.06 billion, or 5.7 per cent., more to go into English schools in 1998–99. That enables a start to be made on raising educational standards, which we are determined to see. It also allows £350 million for community care and £70 million more for children's social services, as well as a 4.8 per cent. increase in provision for fire services and other, smaller increases for the remaining services.
We have inherited extremely tight spending plans, and we are committed to living within those plans. I acknowledge that we have not been able, within those constraints, to meet all the pressures that local government has identified. However, I am sure that councils will wish to review critically all the tasks that they undertake and to continue to improve efficiency and effectiveness wherever possible.
There has already been a good deal of comment on how the increase is to be funded. The settlement led immediately to suggestions in the local press in Dorset that average band D council tax levels will rise by more than £90 for the coming financial year. The Government are fully funding, with extra grant, the £835 million of new provision for schools. We are also providing a new special grant to cover the revenue costs of local authority private finance initiative projects. Including these, aggregate external finance will be £37.51 billion, an increase of 2.7 per cent. compared with 1997–98.
That is not as big an increase as that for total standard spending. Although we have backed our new spending provision with grant, there was a gap in grant funding built into the spending plans that we inherited from the previous Government. That explains the difference between the total of aggregate external finance and the total standard spending.
The gap in grant funding implies a pressure on council taxes equivalent to a 7 per cent. increase. We have sought to release pressures that might otherwise have led to further tax increases, by a number of means, especially by fully funding the extra provision for education. That extra funding for education is worth £50 a year to the typical taxpayer. However, I will not be drawn into predicting actual tax levels. On that note, I must say that the unfounded and speculative claims that have been made about the effect of the settlement on council taxes are generally unhelpful and worrying to many local taxpayers.
The Government do not have targets for council taxes in 1998–99. The actual council tax in individual authorities is properly a matter for local discretion and local decisions on spending and financing. Tax rates will be affected by a range of factors, such as collection performance and collection fund surplus or deficit. I will say, however, that we expect local authorities to give proper consideration to the burden on their taxpayers when they come to set their budgets.
I will briefly discuss capping. Hon. Members will know that we remain committed to the ending of crude and universal capping. To achieve that, we announced in July a review of local government finance which will look at the matter, as well as a range of other issues. A sequence of consultation papers will be published over the next few months, with the intention of publishing a White Paper in the spring. The Local Government Association has been fully involved in these discussions.
In the meantime—and in the light of our public expenditure plans—capping will remain in place for 1998–99. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced provisional capping principles for 1998–99 to the House on 2 December. Those are subject to a number of changes this year. They will give local authorities more room to exercise local discretion and will help them to direct the additional provision for education to the schools, for which it is intended.
We recognise that there is the potential for increases in council taxes as a result of those changes in the capping principles. However, we expect local authorities to look carefully at their permitted increases, including passporting, and to make a careful judgment about whether they need to make those increases in budget and whether their council tax payers can afford them. Many authorities have budgeted below their capping limit in the past. We have given local authorities extra room within which to exercise their discretion and we expect them to use this greater flexibility responsibly.
Those principles are necessarily provisional. Firm decisions on capping cannot be made until authorities have set their budgets for 1998–99. When those decisions are made, the Government will of course take into account all relevant considerations.

Mr. Robert Walter: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I regret that I cannot, because I have been left very little time to reply, and the hon. Gentleman did not ask in advance for permission to intervene in the debate.
The hon. Member for Christchurch has raised several issues relating to the way in which standard spending assessments apply in Dorset. SSAs play an important part in the overall financial system for local authorities. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement outlined our proposals for local government finance for the coming year. I should like to remind hon. Members of what we are seeking to achieve and of some of the main changes for SSAs, since they put in context those affecting Dorset.
Our election pledge to tackle the issue of fairness remains a priority and the provisional settlement announcement has begun to overcome the injustices of the system. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to reach that situation. As a result, the way in which SSAs are determined and how they might be improved is an important part of our review of local government finance. We are also ready to consider new evidence for changes in SSAs to bring about improvements.
The changes that we propose, like many of our other priorities, begin with education. The education formula assessing the spending needs for under-fives will be changed to reflect the abolition of the nursery vouchers scheme. The formula will be based on the number of pupils for whom local authorities provide nursery education, rather than on the total population of four-year-old children, regardless of whether they receive

pre-school education. Where local authorities have increased provision beyond the level in spring 1997, they will be able to apply to the Department for Education and Employment for transitional specific grant.

Mr. Chope: I raised some specific, narrow issues relating to my constituents and some particular matters concerning the settlement in Dorset. The Minister is responding with banalities and generalities. Will he confine his remarks in the remaining time to the specific issues affecting Dorset? If council tax goes up by more than 7 per cent. in Dorset, will it be the councils in Dorset that are failing in their duty, or will it be the Government's responsibility?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman took rather more than the customary time, leaving me less time than is the normal courtesy to reply to his questions. I was giving him a detailed response on the issues that he raised, including the rationale for changes in the SSA methodology. I intended to come to his other specific points, but if I do not manage to do so, because time runs out, that will be his fault, not mine.
The principles that we adopted for changes in the SSA methodology were all agreed with the Local Government Association. The principles now make it more explicit how measures of need are evaluated. That represents an improvement on the previous formula, whereby some affluent areas were ranked higher in terms of deprivation than other parts of the country with more obvious economic and social problems. Indicators such as morbidity rates and the proportion of residents on income support have been—in my view, rightly—added to the indices.
We have confronted the inequity in the present system whereby visitors and commuters were attributed the same economic and social characteristics as residents. Previously, sparsity, density and measures of neediness applied to all those categories. That was clearly a gross anomaly and now they will apply only to those living in such areas. There was clearly something wrong with a system that prescribed that all visitors and commuters to an area were as deprived as the average resident. We shall continue to take account of the extra costs of visitors and commuters, but only the fair costs.
We have proposed in the settlement to change the way in which we deal with the costs of borrowing. During the 1980s, local authorities had several choices about how to use capital receipts. They could spend them on new investments or they could use them to repay debt. At present, the capital finance system works to the advantage of those who repaid debt. We propose to change it so that where an authority would do better from having its capital financing SSA worked out using its actual level of debt in 1990, rather than the notional level previously used, that measure will be adopted.
One significant part of the calculation of SSAs in which we have decided not to implement any change at present concerns the area cost adjustment, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Prime Minister said that we would review that, and we have done so. We have received considerable representations from people in


local government who were unhappy about the Elliot proposals and supported a specific cost approach. We therefore specifically commissioned further work to examine the merits of such an approach.
Dorset county council fares well from the proposed SSAs. Its—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes past One o'clock.